The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
What's Next? Acceptance of Polygamy Growing on Left
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Back in May 2013, I correctly made the call that transgenderism would be the Next Big Thing that the respectable establishment was gearing up to push hard in the wake of gay marriage.

Many others had suggested polygamy or sex with children as Next, but I was skeptical.

In 2020s, however, what will be Next?

I am starting to see how polygamy could line up with today’s most sacred values: immigration, blackness, Think-of-The-Childrenism, refugees, anti-Christianism, etc.

In an annual Gallup Poll, the percentage of respondents saying polygamy was “morally acceptable” has grown from single digits up through 2010 to 18% in 2019.

Among conservatives, approval of polygamy is 10% and among liberals it is 26%.

From a 2017 article by Andrew Dugan of Gallup:

Though polygamous societies often justify their lifestyle on religious grounds, it is Americans who do not identify with any religion who are most accepting of the practice. Between 2011 and 2017, 32% of Americans who do not associate with a particular religion or have no religion at all said polygamy was “morally acceptable.” This follows the general tendency for those who are less religious to be more liberal on social issues.

Americans who identify with a Christian religion are less likely than the overall sample average to find polygamy morally tolerable.

This includes Mormons. Gallup’s sample between 2011 and 2017 includes 167 Americans who identify their religion as Mormon or Latter-day Saints. This small sample size invokes the need for caution in interpretation given the wide margin of error associated with it, but it is notable that the 12% of Mormons who find polygamy morally acceptable is roughly the same as the figure for Protestants/other Christians (9%) and Catholics (10%).

Somebody on Twitter sent me the following graph showing that young liberals are increasingly pro-polygamy, but neither of us has been able to track down the source, so take it for what it’s worth. However, it does look consistent with the Gallup results:

I could imagine in a few years reading a slew of articles about how outdated anti-polygamy laws are ripping apart African refugees families.

Imagine that in some black African country in 2020s, the president is a Christian evangelical who decrees a ban on polygamy. (With about 40 such countries, the odds are high.) The Warren Administration and the New York Times begin a coordinated campaign about the persecution of the poor polygamists in Matabeleland or wherever by the hateful Evangelicals, and how we must let in refugees from Christian Fundamentalism.

But then, how can these poor black refugees find sanctuary in America when polygamy is outlawed? Their plight is making the Statue of Liberty cry. So, our outmoded laws must be changed to stop Ripping Apart Vulnerable Families. Justice Ginsburg writes in her majority opinion:

Laws against polygamy were passed in the pre-1960s by bigoted Protestants, so they are prima facie unconstitutional and … still processing … please reboot my cyborg brain implant.

 
Hide 299 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. As with the trans issue, it turns out the “slippery slope” crowd was right. I doubted them at the time, so I’m eating my words as I write this.

    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Ed
  2. Anon[226] • Disclaimer says:

    Sodom and Gommorah-bound arent they? First gays, then trans, then polygamy, and then I imagine they will work on ages-of-consent…….getting that down to less than 16.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Chrisnonymous
  3. SFG says:

    The NYT had an article pushing polyamory a few weeks ago. It seems to be the next thing after World wars G and T.

    I predict they will try to come up with some reason guy with two girls is wrong but girl with two guys is OK. Power relations or something.

    The irony is that the arrangement is actually detrimental to most members of the gender allowed to have multiple partners–if you look at the fundamentalist Mormons they’re always throwing out young men so the old guys can collect wives. (This is something the guys fantasizing about polygamy never realize.)

  4. Huh, I would have put my money on Bestiality being the next moral crusade.

  5. Sex with children has a foot in the door equal to polygamy I think. It’s clear that our elites are OK with it. Give it 10 years. Love is love (barf)

    What’s the next big step after that, you might ask? Something boring like the mainstreaming of bestiality of necrophilia? Hah! Child’s play. Those issues will tag along with child sex.

    The next big step after that will criminalizing the refusal to have sex with a homosexual who demands it.

    Don’t even think about saying “it will never happen.” Look at what has happened up to this point.

  6. Farenheit says:

    Perhaps as more and more of the younger generation look at each other and see people who they view as unworthy marriage material, yet fail to see that same fault in themselves, they come to the conclusion, better to share a worthy husband/wife with some one else, than resign themselves to a life of spinster cat lady/neckbeard hood.

    • Replies: @njguy73
  7. Rapparee says:

    I suspect at least some of the Strange New Respect for Islam from progressive quarters in recent decades comes from progs’ subconscious recognition that Islamic sexual morality is more rigorous and orderly than the chaotic Western free-for-all that sends college students oscillating between spring-break debauchery at one extreme and signed consent forms for flirtation at the other. (Mostly it’s because Islamic votes are handy to left-wing parties in European elections, of course, but there are other factors). Something within normal people instinctively respects sexual continence, even (or perhaps especially) when they themselves are incapable of personally practicing it.

    This is rather ironic, if you really think about it, because orthodox Christian sexual morality, as understood by every traditional mainstream denomination prior to about 1930, and by Europe as a whole for most of the past two millenia, is far, far stricter than Islam (e.g., Mark 10:11, Matthew 5:28, 1 Corinthians chapter 7)- Mohammed, unlike Jesus, permits divorce, polygamy, and concubinage (albeit under some practical restrictions). As Houellebecq seems to have observed, Westerners are currently in the mood for a religion that will give them some much-needed discipline and structure- but not one that interferes too much with their purposed shenanigans in the bedroom.

  8. BenKenobi says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Sam Hyde’s “2070” Ted-X Talk gets more prescient by the day.

  9. Sean says:

    Consensual polygamy, even though it is in practice never polyandry, would be difficult to reject. Women are not going to object to polygyny because they get access to the highest quality men (Sexy Son Hypothesis).

    Among blacks the de facto reality is already established. Blogger Fabius Maximus said as a social worker in black ghettos during the Seventies it was his observation that every girl living there had to be in a sexual relationship with local youths to survive. R.Kelly is no anomaly.

  10. Jack D says:

    I think polygamy by Muslims (esp. African Muslims – not Black Muslims but African-African Muslims) in the US is already defacto accepted. I understand that it’s very common for African Muslim men to buy a multi-story row house or “three flat” (these are not that expensive in black ghettos). You install wife #1 (with her kids) on floor #1, wife #2 (with her kids) on floor #2, etc. (up to a maximum of 4 but 4 is rare) and the Big Man takes turns sleeping on each floor. You start out with one wife and then after a few years when the bloom is off the rose and you can afford it, you go back to the old country and bring back #2, who is a younger model. Of course the marriages are under sharia only and not legally registered so the wife and kids are eligible for “single parent” type benefits and there’s no concern about laws against polygamy. As is the case with Ilhan Omar, there are no qualms about lying to the authorities – she “married” her brother to bring him in to the US (and still serves in the US Congress). Perhaps these guys bring their wives as “sisters” – I don’t know the gimmick/lie that they use.

    As with most things involving immigrants, the facts on the ground are well beyond what the legal system or the public recognizes.

    • Agree: Lot, Alden
  11. syonredux says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Sex with children has a foot in the door equal to polygamy I think. It’s clear that our elites are OK with it. Give it 10 years. Love is love (barf)

    Disagree. Feminists are very much against pedophilia. Indeed, many of them are extremely uncomfortable with just-over-age-of-consent relationships where one partner is significantly older (e.g., a 35 year old man dating an 18 year old girl). Polyamory (to give polygamy its PC title) has much more support.

  12. asdf says:

    You’re probably right Steve.

    But, how about -> Female Genital Mutilation isn’t that bad you guys! They think we’re weird for getting boys circumcised.

    Maybe the tolerant will have to loop around to intolerance again and mandate burkhas. I think I might have seen signals in that direction..

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  13. Rapparee says:
    @Smithsonian

    Cue scholarly articles, followed by a bestselling novel, followed by a Netflix miniseries, all rehabilitating poor, misunderstood Pasiphaë, persecuted by the patriarchal, speciesist ancient world for the crime of falling in love.

    (If you’re skeptical that this sort of program may be in the works, let me merely note that spellcheck did not flag “Speciesist” on me, but did flag “Pasiphaë”, and sometimes flags real English words like “tithonic“, “prerupt“, or “cacchinate“.)

  14. GSH says:

    I think it would depend on how divorce laws split up assets. Imagine a man with two wives, and one wife wants a divorce. Since there’s a woman on both sides of the split, I’m not really sure if the leaving wife would get much alimony or child support.

    I don’t think women will be willing to embrace anything which hurts their position vis-a-vis divorce. If legal polygamy ends up making divorce financially more difficult, I think it will be quickly dropped by progressives.

    • Replies: @bomag
    , @william munny
  15. Hopscotch says:

    As inequality increases and the safety net erodes, I could easily see polygamy-lite becoming a thing in high COL areas, where a well-to-do egomaniac white guy marries and has children with consecutive women, who end up more-or-less financially dependent on him. But as an upside, the women also get some financial security and their own apartments in a desirable area, where they can hang out in yoga pants, avoid work and kind of pretend they are in a monogamous relationship.

    Basically, take the modern ex-wife arrangement among rich dudes, remove the religious overtones and throw in more downwardly-mobile, attractive half-White, half-minority women, but who are also not eager to marry equivalent downwardly mobile, half-White, half-minority men with no career prospects. Suspect this would be eugenic, all things considered.

    • Replies: @bomag
  16. Daniel H says:

    You can be sure, wherever the “elite” go, the cucks won’t be too far behind.

  17. @Smithsonian

    Nah, the cat ladies would be pissed Miss Sniffles is getting laid more than them.

  18. My tinder lifestyle makes it harder to have a moral objection to polygamy.

  19. Ian says:

    Polygamy checks all the right boxes:

    1) Fetishizes consent above all else.
    2) Disrupts traditional family values.
    3) Ostensibly (but not actually) indifferent to gender.

  20. With due respect to Steve, this one has been pretty obvious for a while.

  21. JimB says:

    Take my wives, please.

  22. L Woods says:
    @SFG

    Maybe they do realize it. Fucking over the average man is, after all, the left’s raison d’etre.

    • Replies: @SFG
  23. The US tax code and health insurance system does not really favor polygamy, so there is that.

    Most people in the US seem to prefer serial monogamy. The American dream for a man with a good career and/or inheritance is have a starter wife and raise a couple of kids, then trade for a trophy wife with big breasts as he approaches middle age, and perhaps add a concubine or two, or a late-life wife during the Viagra years. Our current President is a leader in this respect.

    Men like Mick Jagger are outliers who, perhaps, have too much of a good thing going on.

    Jeff Bezos is a such a nerd that he does not quite understand the rules of the game and is easy prey for gold diggers.

    Jeffrey Epstein never got it either; he accumulated heirlooms, but died heirless, having spent his life looking for love in all the wrong places, and expending a great deal of semen to no avail. He might just have well been gay or donated to a sperm bank.

    Rupert Murdoch is himself a dirty digger with a history of global serial monogamy, who cast his conjugal nets on four continents and is currently married to one of Jagger’s discards.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @donvonburg
  24. L Woods says:
    @syonredux

    Correct. Although as ever, I wouldn’t be surprised if they found a way to have their cake and eat it too. 35 year old man/17 year old girl bad bad BAD!!!111 worst thing ever, but 55 year old gay man/8 year old boy DOUBLEPLUSGOOD bc, uh, “power dynamics.”

  25. SFG says:
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    After hearing about ‘heteronormativity’, I remember reading about that Bob Hope joke in 1975: “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

    50 years?

  26. L Woods says:
    @Sean

    The de facto reality is established among whites, I have sad news for you. Conservatives have done and will do nothing, because female sexual license has somehow become sacrosanct for suburban conservadad doofus.

  27. Anon[577] • Disclaimer says:

    Would Tinder have anything to do with this trend? It seems on college campuses and among the young the media has been reporting a sex inequality gap, a bunch of virgins (25 to 50 percent, depending on the report and the campus), with a smaller percentage of guys who have a different girl every night.

    This New York Times Modern Love piece a couple of years ago struck me as really sad:

    Modern Love: Wanting Monogamy as 1,946 Men Await My Swipe
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/style/modern-love-wanting-monogamy-as-1946-men-await-your-swipe.html

    Leaving Michael’s apartment one Tuesday morning, I smiled and said, “Have a good class today.” That may not sound like much, but I was trying to leave a hint: I was interested in more than our one-night-a-week thing.

    Understandably, he didn’t catch on….

    My female friends, who associate dating apps more with the Grim Reaper than with Cupid, warned me against them, saying, “The guys just want to hook up and disappear.”

    … Every Monday night for the next month, I would stuff my contact lens solution into my backpack and walk to Michael’s apartment. He’d lean against my shoulder as we watched movies in his barren living room, which he decided not to decorate because he had signed only a one-year lease.

    Everything about us was temporary. We would talk a little, watch a little and then go to bed. In the morning, I would zip up my coat while he asked, “Heading out?”

    … Earlier, I had noticed how he’d become Facebook friends with a Sophie, along with a series of girls from other schools. One had cute glasses and a nose ring, and another looked as if she played guitar better than I did. Michael didn’t share mutual friends with them, so I could only assume he had met them on Bumble or Tinder.

    I tried to shrug it off. So I was Mondays, and I guessed these girls were maybe Thursdays, Wednesdays or Saturdays. I figured they, like me, were just players of the dating app game, where Michael undoubtedly pressed the proverbial “play again?” button after each successful connection. I thought I could deal with that.

    She ultimately hints at monogamy, he balks, and she breaks it off.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    , @bomag
    , @black sea
    , @eah
  28. @SFG

    The irony is that the arrangement is actually detrimental to most members of the gender allowed to have multiple partners

    Agreed. If one man has four wives, three men have no wife at all.

    This is one of the reasons why the Muslim world has so many wars: soldiers are motivated by the possibility of taking the enemy’s women as the spoils of war. The rape and impregnation of Christian schoolgirls captured by Boko Haram is not a minor detail of the Nigerian civil war, but one of the primary goals of the fighters.

    Involuntary celibacy is also one of the reasons for emigration from Muslim countries to the West, and why most of the emigrants are men aged 16 to 40.

    • Agree: GermanReader2
  29. SFG says:
    @Smithsonian

    I think it was Digby Anderson in National Review who suggested necrophilia.

    Swing and a miss, but it was a funny article at least.

  30. @Rapparee

    For men, Christianity is far stricter than Islam. For women, the reverse is true.

  31. Alice says:

    refugees in MN from Somalia already have polygamy, and they already have Social Security and state welfare and medicaid paying for their multiple wives and children.

    so it’s an issue of *legal fairness*, same as gay marriage and social security benefits were.

    and the states are already handling it in people they bring in, so why not allow those here participate in their “faith tradition”?

  32. Alice says:

    (in fact, MN is paying benefits to themultiple wives and children of men who went back to Sonalia and died fighting…)

  33. Mr. Blank says:

    I’m so jaded now that I fully expect this — and I expect it will be sold in an explicitly feminist, white-male-bashing way. I can already see the articles in Vox.com and Jezebel.

    Plus, legalized polygamy presents a plausible path to challenging age-of-consent and incest laws down the road. I imagine the civilization-wreckers view that as a plus.

  34. I think it was Chateau Heartiste who predicted that, once homosexual marriage was legalized, homosexual conceptions of marital fidelity (pretty loose) would be transferred to heterosexual marriage. Add that to the increasing de facto acceptance of Muslims and sharia law, and the legalization of polygamy is probably no further away than 2025, 2030 at the latest.

    • Replies: @njguy73
    , @Corn
    , @Corvinus
  35. @syonredux

    Look for the age of consent to be lowered for homosexual relationships before it is for heterosexual ones. (I admit transgendered persons could make this complicated!)

    • Replies: @syonredux
  36. This would fit in well with the old Chateau Heartiste take that all of our best/luckiest women will be married off to a few rich, polygamous guys while the rest of the men either get sexbots or nothing.

  37. Lot says:

    OT/UK

    What’s going on with Farage and Brexit? BoJo just expelled 20 of his own MPs, destroying his majority, because they opposed Brexit. Yet Farage is still threatening to run his splinter party?

    Without Farage splitting the Brexit vote, the Conservatives will win about 45% to Labour 25%, a smashing Thatcher-sized victory.

    I see the ZioJew conspiracy against Corbyn has worked. In the last 15 polls, Corbyn’s approval rating was below 20% in 12 of them, with the range being 13 to 22% approval and 59-72% disapproval. BoJo meanwhile averages low 40s approval high 30s disapproval.

    A few polls have Labour in 3rd place behind Liberal Dems. This could therefore be the first election they are not in the top 2 since 1922, which was also the first election after most property requirements were removed to vote, very roughly increasing voting eligibility from 25% to 75% of the adult population.

  38. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Islamic polygamy involves “sexist” patriarchal norms, strong taboos and prohibitions against fornication and adultery, promotion of female chastity, coupled with hard limits on polygamy by allowing up to 4 wives. The net effect is that most women are herded into lifelong monogamous marriages at a young age, and polygamy is relatively rare. In other words, our secular society today in which fornication, serial relationships, divorce are accepted and common is effectively more polygynous than Islamic societies in which polygamy is formally allowed. So while Islamic polygamy might be promoted by leftists as a part of its multicultural ideology, on a wider scale it would paradoxically result in greater monogamy and less polygyny and clash with the left.

  39. Anon[577] • Disclaimer says:

    Re: “sex with children”

    It’s hard to imagine actual pedophilia, sex with prepubescent children, being the next big thing. That’s a paraphilia that is pretty rare, so I don’t see a constituency for it. And hebephilia, sex with pubescent kids, up to about 14, also seems like a stretch. Ray Blanchard, of autogynephilia fame, pushed for “pedohebphilic disorder” as a DSM-5 disorder, and the content of his proposal was more or less accepted under the name “pedophilic disorder.” So sex with kids up to about 14 is official a psychological disorder.

    On the other hand ephebophilia, sexual attraction primarily to mid to late adolescents, around age 15 or above, is what we saw in Epstein, and I could see this being pushed for by the cosmopolitan elite. Although epehebophilia means a mostly exclusive attraction to mid-to-late adolescents, the normal attraction to adults, teleiophilia, usually overlaps considerably with attraction to late adolescents, and is constrained more by social and cultural norms than by its being abnormal per se. The idea that normal people are disgusted by the idea of sex with late adolescents is silly on its face, since the distinction in law is an arbitrary age, different everywhere, and which doesn’t correspond to the physical development of the child.

    Seemingly recognizing this, there seems to have developed a social norm that you should only be attracted to people in your own age range, more or less. So an older man who dates a woman in her early twenties is considered a creep, and is even considered to be using tricks picked up over his life and his disproportionate social and economic power to exploit an adult but naive young woman. And similarly with women who go after late adolescent boys, a category I never knew existed until I started reading Instapundit and his sarcastic “Teach women not to rape” posts about arrests of female schoolteachers.

    So in summary, I would not foresee any attempt to normalize pedophilia (at least its actual practice), and for the 15 and up stuff to be normalized it seems like it would immediately bump into opponents who are feminist and oppose the patriarchy and power harassment of young women, who are part of the coalition of the fringes. On the other hand, you have the “sugar daddy” “dating” websites where debt-free college “coeds” contrive to remaian debt free.

  40. I wouldn’t say that World War T has had the same traction or fervor as same-sex marriage. The push behind “trans acceptance” seems to have stalled or even fizzled out. One of the big issues with it: what are they trying to achieve? what’s the goal of the movement?

    Besides the lack of a clear motivating factor, there haven’t been any likable or charismatic leaders for… whatever the trans movement is. Bruce Jenner turned out to be a Trump supporter (or at least, not a rabid Trump hater) and ran over someone with his/her car. Most other transexuals just look like men and don’t possess any sense of relatable public persona. Contrast this with the gay rights movement, where there were plenty of gay men who were famous and had a flair for the spotlight.

    I just don’t see World War T going anywhere anytime soon (or ever).

    • Replies: @Lurker
    , @Altai
  41. Lot says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    “The US tax code and health insurance system does not really favor polygamy, so there is that.“

    Wrong, see Jack D’s post above.

    While some white “poly” degenerates are out there, actual polygamy is 95% an African and Muslim thing in the West. Legal marriage is only for defrauding the immigration system. As St. Omar puts it, what counts is “marriage in our faith tradition.”

    Tax code? Ha! They rarely work, and when they do it is either cash, or they have a ton of child deductions.

    Health insurance? Medicaid, emergency rooms, khat leaves, and that special clitoridectomy doctor who takes cash provides all the medical care needed.

    • Replies: @E. Rekshun
  42. newrouter says:

    Polygamists who marry their daughters?

  43. Now that marriage in the US is no longer exclusively defined as between one man and one woman, legally there will be no lasting mechanism to stop the official recognition of polygamous marriages between consenting adults. A future conservative Supreme Court may punt the issue, but maintaining the ban on polygamy is untenable now that gay marriage is federally protected by Obergefell v. Hodges.

    • Agree: Bill P
  44. @SFG

    they’re always throwing out young men so the old guys can collect wives.

    That’s why polygamous societies are usually unstable. Lots of angry young single guys around.

    Realistically though, the simple Death of Marriage seems a more likely future. People will just cohabit as long as its convenient, and then won’t. That’s how it seems to be trending in Europe, especially.

  45. A few polls have Labour in 3rd place behind Liberal Dems.

    Three-way, or multiway national polls in the UK are very tricky to interpret, because most parliamentary constituencies are safe seats for the Conservatives (mainy rural) or Labour (inner cities), or else they are marginal, hotly contested seats where Lib/Dems, Scottish Nationalists, and other parties may win, or influence the result, and this is even without taking into account the Brexit party.

    The general impression is that the Brexit party could split the Tory (Conservative) vote in key mixed constituencies, letting in the Lib/Dems in traditionally conservative areas.

    In the Brexit referendum, England voted for Brexit, while Scotland and Northern Ireland did not, so there is another factor to play with.

    The current argument seems to be that while a simple majority did vote for Brexit, no one was voting for a Brexit without a deal, which seems to be where Johnson is going.

    In addition the situation in Ireland is a source of complications, because at the present time you have an open border between Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland, based on various negotiated accords and a common location within the EU. Reinstalling a border there is a massive problem.

    Right now it seems like no one really knows where all this is going. We could even see Brexit with no deal, followed by another Scottish independence referendum, followed by Scotland rejoining the EU and adopting the Euro as its currency.

    The only thing that is certain is that…

    I shall being visiting that country in June of 2020 and will report back on the state of affairs, or the affairs of the state.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Lot
  46. Jeff Bezos is a such a nerd that he does not quite understand the rules of the game and is easy prey for gold diggers.

    True story.

    Bezos is a real embarrassment. He even went and hit the gym to try and look more “alpha” … but then is head over heels enamored–like some 15 year old boy–with the neighbor’s 50ish, well-used slutty gold-digger wife, who’s as old as wife #1.

    If he’s lucky, he’s got some actually friends who’ll tell him … don’t put a ring on that!

    Feminism has been a wrecking ball against the dignity that should accrue to a successful man who sticks with wife #1. These sorts of men are the bedrock of civilization.

    But really, if you haven’t got the alpha goods, stick with that little bit of dignity that still exists. At least you’re with a woman with whom you have got something in common–your kids.

    • Replies: @SFG
  47. Kronos says:
    @Rapparee

    “I suspect at least some of the Strange New Respect for Islam from progressive quarters in recent decades comes from progs’ subconscious recognition that Islamic sexual morality is more rigorous and orderly than the chaotic Western free-for-all that sends college students oscillating between spring-break debauchery at one extreme and signed consent forms for flirtation at the other.”

    Keep in mind Islam hasn’t been “culturally nuked” by the 1960s to nearly the same degree as Christianity. (Though it’s my understanding the Nation of Islam hasn’t spread terribly well in the Islamic world.) Feminism has some opportunity cost downsides that can’t often be discussed openly. Islam can help resolve that problem without pissing of feminist groups at least in the short term. They don’t accept females in religious leadership roles which offers quite a bit of protection. The Episcopal Church has became undermined by Boomer feminists who wanted to change everything from the inside. Which caused many of their children to run (if they had any) towards non-denominational fellowships.

    • Replies: @Rapparee
  48. We already had a Warren administration, according to my Dad. It was the damnable Earl Warren Supreme Court.

  49. @Jonathan Mason

    I may be there before you, Jonathan. I’ll take the high road. You take the left fork.

  50. Lot says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    The way Labour could come in third in seats is lose the white working class seats to Conservatives (already the trend), Scotland to SNP and LD, and white leftist seats plus Wales to LD, leaving them with just the Muslim ghettos and a few mostly rustbelt areas that are mixed minority and poor whites, like Corbyn’s own completely safe seat, which was 48% White British at last count in 2011, and probably well less now.

    While that would be satisfying, the best case is Labour doesn’t lose so bad they dump him and he remains their face for another 5 years.

  51. It seems that the left also supports cannibalism as well.

    Not to mention incest an pedophilia.

  52. SFG says:
    @AnotherDad

    I agree with the rest of your comment, but… Bezos is a billionaire. He has a lot more temptations in this regard than guys like us.

    • Replies: @Jon
    , @AnotherDad
  53. SFG says:
    @syonredux

    I’m sure if the woman’s older they’re OK with it.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  54. Lot says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    “ legally there will be no lasting mechanism to stop the official recognition of polygamous marriages between consenting adults.”

    Heterosexual marriage excludes obligate homosexuals from ever having a loving marriage. Polygamy bans don’t. Even places that practice polygamy it is still a minority of marriages.

    So if you want to make that the line, which seems to be what Justice Kennedy did, it can certainly hold.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  55. ia says:

    Feminists are very much against pedophilia. Indeed, many of them are extremely uncomfortable with just-over-age-of-consent relationships where one partner is significantly older

    Feminists are from a high class or so they think and are worried about themselves and daughters. They don’t seem to mind poorer girls’ defilement.

  56. Rosie says:
    @Sean

    Consensual polygamy, even though it is in practice never polyandry, would be difficult to reject. Women are not going to object to polygyny because they get access to the highest quality men (Sexy Son Hypothesis).

    Oh yes we are!

    Polygamy is nothing but a fraud. It is totally fake. A man who marries another woman is not taking another wife. He is replacing the one he already has. A forat wife effectively loses all her power in a marriage when another (younger) wife is introduced. Let alone the fact that you will NEVER have any financial security because your husband will spend all his money courting some new bimbo. With no nest egg, you are constantly on the verge of ruin. In Bangladesh, your husband might even rent you out to a brothel to get money for another wife!

    • Agree: TTSSYF
  57. Lugash says:

    Polygamy seems to be the next thing, but there doesn’t seem to be much media pushing behind it. The media pushed gay acceptance slowly in the 70s, ramping up throughout the 80s and 90s. There doesn’t seem to be the same with polygamy. There was ‘Big Love’ and maybe a soft polygamous relationship in Sex and the City, but other than that I can’t see much. There was also an Oliver Stone(?) film with Blake Lively who was in a relationship with two men, but that got edited out of the story after it flopped in the trailer.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  58. J.Ross says:

    Lefties always imagine themselves being able to make a hypothetical situation work, so of course they could see themselves as ethical polygamist husbands. Once you get rid of Christianity and traditional marriage, what automatic objection can there be?

  59. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Ann Coulter got me LOLing on this very subject today, in this column.

    In 2008, Californians voted against gay marriage. Again, this was California—not South Carolina—and voters decided, 52% to 48%, that “marriage” is not between a mailbox and a chimpanzee, a rhododendron and refrigerator, but only between a man and woman.

    In the meantime,

    “I’ve got one word for you about your future, Ben.”

    “Sir, uhh, there’s gonna be Polygamy and all…”

    “Exactly Ben. One word ….”

    “Sexbots!”

    “Errr, thank you, Mr. Robinson.”

  60. J.Ross says:
    @Lugash

    A lot of the recent gay triumphes were actually judicial sneakery, defying people to get mad enough to pass a referendum now that it was already decreed by a judge. That was probably informed by the experience of the “populist” approach to increasing gay visibility in the seventies, which may have made a lot of gays realize that their standing wasn’t just a public relations issue.

    • Replies: @istevefan
  61. Right now it seems like no one really knows where all this is going. We could even see Brexit with no deal, followed by another Scottish independence referendum, followed by Scotland rejoining the EU and adopting the Euro as its currency.

    The Germans picking up the tab for Scotland … that sounds like winning!

  62. Flip says:

    Multiple wives sounds good to me. Competition will keep them on good behavior.

  63. Hodag says:

    Steve, you hang around slatestarcodex. Scott Alexander makes it clear he is polyamorous, which means both he and his partner can seek out other lovers. But they have to be honest about it.

    As it works out in the poly sphere, men with a lot on the ball have their pick of women. Women with the ability to do so will find a man to pay the bills while seeking out exciting men to ravish them. I was single until early middle age and from time to time I had women in “open” relationship make certain proposals, but they were all crazy and I think that sort of thing is crazy on many levels. Polygamy is inevitable. And a damn shame it is.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Known Fact
  64. The next big thing from the left, already underway in fact, is for veganism. Today a woman in Perth Australia is suing her neighbour for barbecuing meat, the smell offends her veganism. She will win the case eventually and that will start that ball rolling. They may use the same playbook used against smoking.

    You will see more and more articles from scientists *proving that meat is a direct cause of climate change. People will be pushed towards a diet of cricket meal and soy.

  65. Anonymous[284] • Disclaimer says:

    If you accept consensual homosexuality (including sanctioning marriage contracts), then I don’t see why polygamy is off the table. It’s consenting adults.

    Same thing with incest, if by adults. I mean sure there’s an ick factor. But if the people freely chose, so be it.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Tono Bungay
  66. @Smithsonian

    The smart money is on the sheep. Otherwise it’s about the same spread if you’d put it on the dromedaries or the pandas (some of those pandas are really cute, I gotta admit…)

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
  67. @syonredux

    Don’t you think feminists have proven to be very selective about who they apply those standards to? Those rules are great for haranguing average white guys, but I recall NOW was dead silent on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, and Oprah new what Harvey Weinstein was, just to name a couple of many many examples.

    I very much believe feminists will be mostly on board with gay men having lawful access to young boys. It seems to fit the feminist agenda to damage males as early as possible.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @syonredux
  68. GU says:
    @Rapparee

    I was gearing up to write a Houellebecq comment halfway through your comment. Glad that you made the connection.

  69. bomag says:
    @Rapparee

    “All my liberal friends have conservative instincts.”

    (Line from a novel mentioned on this site; The Mandibles; much of it a description of modern, liberal life in a time of decline.)

  70. syonredux says:
    @SFG

    I’m sure if the woman’s older they’re OK with it.

    Probably. But they also know that they can’t logically defend the double-standard.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  71. @Anon

    First gays, then trans, then polygamy, and then I imagine they will work on ages-of-consent…….getting that down to less than 16.

    Why does everybody say this? Does nobody follow the news?

    Women are being sent to prison for entertaining eager 17-year-olds. Homos helped kill NAMBLA, lesbians with particular zeal. How does the age of consent compare to a century ago? Is it still 12 in civil-law Louisiana?

    Sex-with-kids is one area where the crackdowns have intensified, not lessened.

  72. We’ve always known what’s next

    Our kids

    Always been about this

  73. The Polyamory thing has been going on for a few decades. I think it grew out of the “Free Love” hippie movement of the 1960s.

    Being someone on the left, I have had some friends in the poly crowd.

    The Poly scene, as someone else pointed out, usually involves being in a committed relationship with someone else, but both partners are allowed to see other people on the side. In other words, an open marriage type of arrangement.

    In some cases, one or both of the main Poly couple are bisexual, so that means they can have a primary relationship with someone, and hook up with the other sex on the side, or whatever.

    Which makes the situation I am about to describe inevitable:

    There is a woman I used to date about 40 years or so ago. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am about the same age as Steve.

    This woman attended a well known women’s college. During her college days, she decided she was bisexual.

    So, an interesting situation about 30 years ago.

    This woman had a serious boyfriend. They were a primary couple in an open poly relationship. She, being bisexual, found a young lady she liked to hook up with. That other young lady, being bi, also hooked up with men. Including my friend’s boyfriend. Which meant there were actually three of them in the relationship, all sleeping with each other.

    In the end, my friend lost her boyfriend. He ran off with his girlfriend’s girlfriend. So my friend became the odd woman out of the three.

    Such are the dangers of poly relationships.

    Of course the obvious point is, poly relationships make child rearing a bit difficult.

    • Replies: @GermanReader2
  74. What’s Next? Acceptance of Polygamy Growing on Left

    I recently attended a few anarchist events in Brooklyn and I can vouch for the rising acceptance of polyamory. These were book publishing events and featured champagne anarchists types, mostly grad students, independent publishers and people living off of some sort of trust fund. These were not Portland gutter punk anarchists. The first shocking reveal was how attractive the women were, but it makes sense as this was largely an affluent, radical chic scene. It was pretty obvious that several “couples” were in polyamorous or “open” relationships.

    These were deeply ideological people who are committed to implementing their politics in the real world or what they refer to as praxis. They are religiously dedicated to Foucault so that they reject all forms of hierarchy and gender norms as forms of “oppression”. My general sense is that politically induced polyamory makes for some rather miserable people. More than one woman told me that they would go back to monogamy, as open relationships were basically an excuse to exploit them. It would seem normal that polygamy would mean one man with several women, but I think in anarchist circles it often means one woman sharing several men. While several of the women were extremely attractive, many of the men in these relationships seemed like passive sad sacks. In a culture obsessed with women liberation and consent, it seems like women often were calling the shots in the polyamory relationships.

    Last observation is that a number of women wore S&M type clothing, extreme heels, chokers, leather pants, leather everything basically. Perhaps this is an obvious observation, but it seemed that the more these women were liberated from monogamy and sexual limitations, the more they dressed like they wanted to be tied down. With the disappearance of social limitations, these women seemed to call out for physical ones.

    • Replies: @Corn
  75. L Woods says:
    @syonredux

    Since when are they made to logically defend anything?

    • Troll: Rosie
  76. @Sean

    >Consensual polygamy, even though it is in practice never polyandry,

    I wouldn’t be so sure about this. In this time of great pussy inflation, girls are running de-facto chad harems. Their reasoning is probably the guys are doing it to them too. By no means the norm, but it’s a thing. Girl can get laid by a man 2+ points above her immediately via a convenient app. While quality men “have options”, only the absolute top of the top men have the real world ability to replace any girl with a hotter girl within 2 hours. But basically all girls can do this. Both sides are aware. Guys are letting it happen

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Anonymous
    , @L Woods
  77. Jon says:
    @SFG

    But doesn’t the fact that he has more temptations just make it worse that he ended up with some busted up old gold digger.

  78. Bill P says:

    After Obergefell there’s no tenable legal argument against officially-recognized polygamy. It’s already legal in practice, and has been since adultery was decriminalized.

    The only solution for Christians who want to preserve traditional marriage is to push for the abolition of civil marriage. Civil marriage does not exist in a number of Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, because marriage is considered a religious rather than secular matter.

    Some southern states seem to be moving in that direction. It’s probably the only solution for preserving the institution at this point aside from resorting to authoritarian secularism, i.e. enforced atheism, as the Communists do.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  79. Mike1 says:

    Mormons are trained from birth to lie about their beliefs. Their real life acceptance of polygamy is high.

  80. @SFG

    It’s a whole lot more practical now than it was in those dark days before Formaldehyde .

    SCIENCE!

  81. I still believe the next big thing will be leftist seizure of coastal properties for leftist use. National security related to climate change will be the stated reason. To start with they’ll offer landowners pennies on the dollar, then move to plan B which is outright confiscation. Rob Reiner’s Malibu estate will be exempt.

  82. George says:

    How would pensions, especially government pension, work if an employee has a polygamous marriage? How would health insurance work for an employee with multiple spouses? How would divorce work?

    • Replies: @njguy73
    , @Pericles
  83. Lurker says:
    @SFG

    The reality will be Donald Trump alpha types monopolising the supermodels leaving leftist polygamist cheerleaders swelling the ranks of incels.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  84. nebulafox says:
    @Hodag

    >Women with the ability to do so will find a man to pay the bills while seeking out exciting men to ravish them

    The issue with this is finding an affluent man who is going to sign up for being the former in the age of porn, mail-order brides, and cheap flight tickets.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  85. Your Christian-fundamentalist-African-leader scenario would create an incentive for Africans to declare themselves polygamous (so as to be accepted as refugees). Right now, polygamy is pretty rare even where it’s allowed, but the prospect of getting refugee status in the West could become the world-historical turning point that really kickstarts polygamy.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  86. nebulafox says:
    @Anonymous

    Homosexuality is not a threat to the basic stability of your society. Polygamy is.

  87. Lurker says:
    @SFG

    Nah, I think that’s a dead end.

  88. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    A robot with a penis? When is the bris?

    Say “hello” to transhumanism.

  89. Anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s not the Left. It’s Mutants.

  90. Rosie says:
    @Not My Economy

    Girl can get laid by a man 2+ points above her immediately via a convenient app.

    I’m disgusted by people who grade human beings like slabs of beef.

  91. Lurker says:
    @al-Gharaniq

    I just don’t see World War T going anywhere anytime soon (or ever).

    Agreed. It’s, literally, a sterile movement.

  92. @Achmed E. Newman

    True. And it was an unmitigated disaster. It was the precursor to the Ferguson Effect ™.

  93. Rosie says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    It seems to fit the feminist agenda to damage males as early as possible.

    Mike, I fear you’re losing touch with reality.

    • Replies: @Bill P
  94. njguy73 says:
    @Farenheit

    No, they come to the conclusion, better to share a Chad or Stacy with three other people, than resign themselves to a life of being forced to be faithful to one ordinary Joe or Jane.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    , @L Woods
  95. @asdf

    They think we’re weird for getting boys circumcised.

    They don’t “get” boys circumcised. They make the boys circumcise themselves. At age eight.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  96. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    “all of our best/luckiest women will be married off to a few rich, polygamous guys while the rest of the men either get sexbots or nothing.”

    Actually, the norm across nature/history is “women will be married off to a few rich, polygamous guys while the rest of the men” get each other, as homosexuality is the evolutionary strategy to accommodate alpha male type hierarchies. Sorry, “conservatives,” your preachers are wrong, if you want hierarchy, you need homosexuality.

  97. njguy73 says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Somewhere in a Utah prion, Warren Jeffs is like, “I should have just waited it out.”

  98. Liza says:

    Polygamy the next big thing? Pfft. It’s been around for at least a couple of generations now in the forms of serial monogamy and general promiscuity. So, who cares if now half a dozen women call themselves Wife of Billy Jones or whatever the name of the man is.

    What’s the issue that would make”polygamy” different – that they all live together under the same roof instead of each woman having her own apartment? That one man is manufacturing children by several women? My god, this is as old as the hills.

    This behavior is a bad thing and was seen to be a bad thing until maybe the 1960s or so, with the men being called good-time-Charlies and the women sluts. It’s the normalization and acceptance of promiscuity and spouse-disposal which is going to be officially secured and cemented once and for all.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  99. syonredux says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    I very much believe feminists will be mostly on board with gay men having lawful access to young boys. It seems to fit the feminist agenda to damage males as early as possible.

    Don’t see it happening for the foreseeable future.As I said upthread, Feminists are very anti-Pedophile.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    , @JMcG
  100. Bill P says:
    @Rosie

    How is he wrong? Inflicting damage on boys and men so as to weaken and intimidate them is integral to feminism.

    Incidentally, this is why many powerful men support feminist policies as well.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    , @Rosie
  101. syonredux says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Look for the age of consent to be lowered for homosexual relationships before it is for heterosexual ones. (I admit transgendered persons could make this complicated!)

    That’s a possibility…..There’s certainly a strong ephebophile contingent in the Gay male community….But I’m not sure that they would be able to overcome the obvious double-standard issues….

  102. i would guess that legalizing prostitution would be first, before this.

    that’s a smaller step, and follows in line from legalizing drugs, legalizing gambling, legalizing homo marriage.

    it’s legal in some other places, and leftists like to work from that direction, “See what other countries do?”, rather than trying to start a movement from scratch.

    multiple simultaneous marriage is not the law in any (?) first would country, although steve is probably correct that the authorities look the other way for muslims sometimes for instance. polygamy is clearly a third world thing, mormons excepted, and the US went far out of it’s way to stomp out mormon polygamy.

    one of the main opposition viewpoints to polygamy is based on stopping people from gaming the welfare system, which is largely what got the mormons shut down. if you allow some guy to not just have 5 kids he can’t support, but have 3 wives and 15 kids he can’t support, your society is in trouble fast if it also has a welfare system.

  103. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    In your reply to Sean, you criticized polygamy for failing to provide wives with power, financial security, and nest eggs. Apparently you grade men like ATM machines.

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @L Woods
  104. @J.Ross

    Yes J, you are clairvoyant. I offer you my condolences.

    Once you get rid of Christianity and traditional marriage, what automatic objection can there be?

    The harshest of all mistresses, the bane of the Left, the queen of resolution, the once and future ruler of all, reality.

    You must give the Left their due. They are not constrained by reason, experience or common sense. No, for them fantasy is their scepter, irrationality is their vehicle, and infinite human suffering is their destination.

    But hey, if you get to stamp on the face of those whom you assume are worthy of the hate you feel because you are a pathetic excuse for life on planet earth, then you are not just a good person, you are the ultimate good person. You are better than the Dalai Lama.

    If so, you, are a triple-damn-good person, and all your fellow stampers will confirm your status.

    And you my friend J.Ross, and Cassandra are soulmates. For that, you earn my condolences; but I am glad you are on our side.

  105. I would bet the Catholic Church would ok the young boy thing long before the polygamy gig. The Cardinals and Bishops would jump at that chance to be legal and the ordinary clerics are in the same boat.

    • Agree: jim jones
  106. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The polygamous men in a society are those that are high status and wealthy. They’re able to provide for multiple wives by definition.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @TTSSYF
  107. Jack D says:
    @Rosie

    Maybe if you were Prime you’d be less disgusted.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @JMcG
    , @Anon
  108. njguy73 says:
    @George

    Some people would make a joke about “3/5 of a spouse,” but I won’t. Not me. Never.

  109. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Not My Economy

    That’s not polyandry, which implies committed relationships between multiple men and one woman. As you say, those chads are screwing around, and obviously would never commit and invest in a serious relationship with a woman and other dudes. What you’re actually describing is polygyny: girls pursuing the minority of chads.

  110. Kronos says:
    @Jack D

    So it’s HBO’s “Big Love” Black immigrant edition.

  111. Kronos says:
    @Bill P

    Always suspected it was sneaky male vs male regulation. White males stick it to Blacks in regards to child support. Helps impound them into jail and free’s up valuable real estate.

    DNA paternity tests marked the fall of the black man.

    • Replies: @Bill P
  112. Rapparee says:
    @Kronos

    St. Paul was giving some sage and prescient advice to young Timothy, far ahead of his time. That’s certainly in the top-ten list of NT passages the big denominations’ leadership would like us all to ignore and forget.

  113. Rosie says:
    @Bill P

    Inflicting damage on boys and men so as to weaken and intimidate them is integral to feminism.

    Nonsense. Feminists don’t want to “weaken and intimidate” men; they want to prevent them from imbibing “toxic masculinity.” You may believe this damages them, but you can’t assume that is the intent.

    Incidentally, this is why many powerful men support feminist policies as well.

    You believe powerful men want to damage young boys?

    • Replies: @Bill P
    , @Mr. Anon
  114. Rosie says:
    @Jack D

    Maybe if you were Prime you’d be less disgusted.

    Nope, it was disgusting even when I was “prime,” you despicable sociopath.

  115. KunioKun says:

    I assume eventually they will move to cease government recognition of marriage all together.

    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie
  116. Anonymous[122] • Disclaimer says:

    I am starting to see how polygamy could line up with today’s most sacred values: immigration, blackness, Think-of-The-Childrenism, refugees, anti-Christianism, etc.

    Polygyny is eugenic and would boost European fertility. Therefore it will not be accepted until Europeans are no more.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @GermanReader2
  117. Anonymous[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P

    Some southern states seem to be moving in that direction. It’s probably the only solution for preserving the institution at this point

    Why exactly is it needed to “preserve the institution”?

    • Replies: @Bill P
    , @Prof. Woland
  118. Rosie says:
    @KunioKun

    Disagree was an error. I meant to agree. I’m not sure we will see legalized polygamy. At some point, if marriage is anything the contracting parties want it to be, there is really no point in having a standard contract at all.

  119. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    In your reply to Sean, you criticized polygamy for failing to provide wives with power, financial security, and nest eggs. Apparently you grade men like ATM machines.

    Immoral scum like you always try to drag the rest of us down to your level so you can feel better about yourselves.

    As I have said before, I married my husband when he had nothing, for love. He promised that he would share with me anything he ever had, for better or worse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  120. Polygamy involves marriage. That’s too old fashion for the left. They are now selling us polyamorous relationships, it’s the next big beautiful thing, originated from Hollywood and now openly embraced by the (((hipsters))) in Silicon Valley. No stinking license needed.

    The (((loony left))) are these days led by a bunch of oversexed, overdrugged, brain dead and morally bankrupt degenerates, and they are dragging the whole western world down with them.

  121. dfordoom says: • Website
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Sex with children has a foot in the door equal to polygamy I think. It’s clear that our elites are OK with it. Give it 10 years. Love is love (barf)

    Yep. It’s probably more likely than polygamy to be the Next Big Thing. It will gets lots of support from the LGBTqwerty crowd.

  122. dfordoom says: • Website
    @syonredux

    Disagree. Feminists are very much against pedophilia. Indeed, many of them are extremely uncomfortable with just-over-age-of-consent relationships where one partner is significantly older (e.g., a 35 year old man dating an 18 year old girl).

    They’re the Old School feminists though. The TERF-style feminists. And they’re very much out of favour these days.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @Twippo
  123. Wilkey says:

    The 1856 Republican Party platform included this line: “It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.”

    Having been raised Mormon, that quote was often drilled into our heads as proof of America’s persecution of the early Mormon Church – a Church which now excommunicates any member found to be practicing polygamy. The modern Mormon Church likes to have it both ways: they want to be seen as having been persecuted, but wants to distance itself as far as possible from actual polygamists.

    Seeing polygamy from not too far a distance, the one thing that gives me some relief about it, as practiced by fundamentalist Mormons, is that it is too inherently unstable to grow very fast.

    Hasidic Jews and the Amish have prodigious growth rates, but that’s with monogamous marriages. Polygamists start out by marrying multiple wives, who are often close relatives, since not many outsiders want to embrace such a lifestyle.

    They do have lots of kids, but when the boys hit puberty the elders start throwing many of them out, using almost any excuse imaginable. Boys present sexual competition to the old men who want to take more wives.

    Kicking out a majority of your young men leads to reduction of potential birth rates, income, and a huge loss of energy and talent. Since the cult leaders aren’t satisfied with one wife there is sexual competition between the leaders that frequently tears the “churches” apart. Women become exhausted by having to basically raise their children on their own. Older kids miss school to help with the younger kids, so their education suffers. And the kids are just dumber overall thanks to high rates of inbreeding. A large fraction of the income in polygamist communities comes from welfare or other forms of outright theft and fraud (Google “Washakie Renewable Energy” for a prime example).

    In short, Mormon polygamist communities can’t grow very fast for very long. The Hasidic Jews and the Amish are going to leave them in the dust.

    Of course that’s not the kind of polygamy the Left will embrace. The kind they will embrace is the kind where Ahmed or N’dibouje can immigrate to the United States and import four arranged marriage wives to join them, and all of the children from those marriages on welfare.

    Maybe it’s good if the Left do start pushing for it. You’re talking about an issue that incites sexual jealousy with the added insult of forcing often childless men and women to pay taxes to support the children of men with four wives. There are some opinions white Americans won’t be guilted out of, and opposition to polygamy is probably one of them.

    • Replies: @Mike1
    , @L Woods
  124. @SFG

    I agree with the rest of your comment, but… Bezos is a billionaire. He has a lot more temptations in this regard than guys like us.

    Hey, you don’t know about my portfolio … but … uh … yeah, you’re right.

    But that’s my point–what Jon said. If Bezos simply got tired of getting good white lady lectures Mackenzie or was banging some 25 year old (with Mason’s “big breasts”) because as “world’s richest man” BSD he wanted to have another passel of kids … ok.

    But if you’re enamored with your best friend’s 50-ish, silicon enhanced, gold-digging wife … uh … loser!

  125. Bill P says:
    @Rosie

    Nonsense. Feminists don’t want to “weaken and intimidate” men; they want to prevent them from imbibing “toxic masculinity.” You may believe this damages them, but you can’t assume that is the intent

    Of course I can assume that. I don’t think feminists are so stupid as to be ignorant of the consequences of the policies they advocate, e.g. suspension of due process for boys accused of any and all imaginable sexual offenses.

    You believe powerful men want to damage young boys?

    Consciously, probably not. Instinctively, I’m afraid so. It’s pretty basic primate psychology.

  126. @Lot

    make that the line, which seems to be what Justice Kennedy did

    Nope. Kennedy weakened the line by invoking, in the majority (5-4) conclusion, his career-long appeal to “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

    His particular concept of “dignity” was a bugbear for Scalia and is of major interest to those wishing to expand rights heretofore denied by precedent:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=kennedy+equal+dignity

    https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/02/equal-dignity-heeding-its-call/

    The amorphous concept of “dignity” can easily be applied to any group of consenting adults wanting the official accreditation of marriage.

    But take heart! Soon you could be proudly out and about with your daughter-wives, you sicko. No more “I wuz passed out drunk!” No one believes that.

    [MORE]

  127. Bill P says:
    @Kronos

    Well, mid-20th century feminism was pushed primarily by wealthy republicans who wanted to bring more women into the workforce and stick it to the unions. However, by the late 60s the Communists had usurped the movement with the help of their loyal little cadres like Betty Friedan, who was ordered by her Stalinist handlers to take up the torch of feminism in the late 40s and then made a career of it.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    , @Alden
  128. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    The polygamous men in a society are those that are high status and wealthy. They’re able to provide for multiple wives by definition.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about, ignoramus. In poor countries, men with any means are hard to find, and parents will give their daughters to marginal men who aleady have multiple wives so as not to have to feed them anymore.

    (Mr. Unz, how about an exemption on that 4 comments rule? I think it’s warranted given this is a sausage fest and I’m vastly outnumbered.)

    • LOL: JMcG
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @TTSSYF
    , @SFG
  129. Bill P says:
    @Anonymous

    For childrearing, naturally.

  130. istevefan says:
    @J.Ross

    The old axiom that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission is somewhat related to these judicial sneakeries as you call them. If you had asked voters a decade or so ago whether they wanted gay marriage, most would have said no. However, after judges in places like Iowa instituted gay marriage, voters realized the sun came up the next day, and after a period of time they began to either support gay marriage or became indifferent to it. As a result if you had a gay marriage referendum today, it would probably win.

    Of course in the immediate afterwards of legalizing gay marriage, most people did see the sun rise the next day and saw no harm. But as time has moved on some people have begun to think that maybe gay marriage did lead to WWT and the possibility of legalized polygamy in the West.

    Unfortunately most people base their opinions on an issue to the the immediate timing of when it is enacted and don’t seem to connect the dots the further time advances. It’s like a reviewer on Amazon who gives a product 5 stars upon unboxing. Only a handful of reviewers ever take the time to go back in six months or more and update their reviews based upon their long term experience.

    So the Left realizes that if you enact a policy and the wheels don’t fall off the next day, you have a better chance of keeping that policy than if you had asked the voters for approval in the first place.

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @Ed
    , @AnotherDad
  131. @Rosie

    Girl can get laid by a man 2+ points above her immediately via a convenient app.

    I’m disgusted by people who grade human beings like slabs of beef.

    Rosie, I don’t know how sincere you with this outrage.

    But it just comes across as put-on, over the top–or just a hissy. Whether you use a numeric scale, or just words–“beautiful”, “attractive”, “sexy”, etc. etc.–his point stands:

    A woman can go out on any night and have sex with a man who is much more attractive than she is.

    This flows directly out of our basic biology–sex is (potentially) expensive (pregnancy) for women, but cheap for men. (“Sperm is cheap. Eggs are expensive”.) (Of course, in our environment today a woman can eliminate her natural biological expense. Or potentially pregnancy trap a man and make it actually dollarswise expensive for him as well. But in terms of basic biology the above stands, and drives the sexual market.)

    Of course a woman can not get *committment* from a much more attractive man in one night, probably not at all. For a man to want to commit and turn a bunch of his productive energy over to supporting a woman and her children, he’s going to want to know he’s getting a woman of quality in return–attractive and fertile, seemingly chaste, not slutty (i.e. he’ll be spending on his kids, not some other guys), good genes, good character, committed to being wife and mother, pleasant company, etc.

    But that women have the sexual power (the “scare resource” sexually), is something that guys learn and have to come to terms with early.

  132. Mr. Anon says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    What’s the next big step after that, you might ask?

    How about cannabalism?

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/swedish-researcher-pushes-human-flesh-eating-as-answer-to-future-climate-change-food-shortages_3068833.html

    All for The Environment, of course.

    Imagine the Iron Chef episode: “Today’s secret ingredient……………………..huuuman flesh!”

  133. Ed says:
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    If a society can’t maintain a basic standard concerning a fundamental building block of society, marriage. It’s going to have a tough time maintaining other standards. This is what we’re seeing now and not just around sexuality and marriage.

  134. Ed says:
    @istevefan

    Bingo. Which is why it’s best to leave decision making to individuals that can think long term. I suppose that’s what SCOTUS judges are for but when you select for such traits as diversity, you aren’t picking the best people.

  135. Mr. Anon says:
    @Rosie

    Nonsense. Feminists don’t want to “weaken and intimidate” men; they want to prevent them from imbibing “toxic masculinity.” You may believe this damages them, but you can’t assume that is the intent.

    A lot of them pretty clearly do want to weaken and intimidate men.

    You believe powerful men want to damage young boys?

    Powerful men often have no problem damaging young men. It’s not much of a stretch to think they might also want to damage boys.

  136. @nebulafox

    Polygamy is.

    Pro-polygamists will counter: “Public homosexual advocacy was widely considered ‘a threat to the basic stability of society.’ But now it’s officially celebrated! You’re not like those anti-gay bigots of yesteryear, are you?”

  137. @Rosie

    You are free to feel this way, but the 1-10 rating scale has reached common acceptance. When you say a woman is an 8, everyone knows what is meant.

  138. Kronos says:
    @Bill P

    She made a career of that during the 1940s? Jeez.

    I understand the corporate sponsorship of feminism.
    In John Hoerr’s book “And the Wolf Finally Came” The private sector unions believed that an alliance with government was essential to balance out the corporations.

    The same thing applies between feminism and the corporations. (Now that the Soviet Union is finished.)

    https://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Finally-Came-American-Industry/dp/0822953986

    • Replies: @Alden
  139. Wilkey says:

    Pro-polygamists will counter: “Public homosexual advocacy was widely considered ‘a threat to the basic stability of society.’ But now it’s officially celebrated! You’re not like those anti-gay bigots of yesteryear, are you?”

    1) I can’t think of a single country where polygamy is widely practiced that I’d like to live in. There are plenty of countries where homosexuality is socially acceptable that I’d be happy to live in, however.

    2) Tolerance of homosexuality is based on the realization that it’s normal for some small percentage of people to develop same sex attraction, and it’s acceptable so long as it doesn’t cause harm to anyone else. Polygamy increases sexual competition to an unhealthy degree and most children from these relationships will end up on the dole – all paid for by people who often have no sexual partners or children at all.

    3) Sexual jealousy – envy of men who have multiple sexual partners while you have none – is politically poisonous. Combine that with having to provide taxpayer support to their offspring and you have the sort of feelings that people aren’t going to easily be guilt-tripped out of.

  140. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    This is not about you. Please stop making everything about yourself. We’re talking about societies, populations, and trends and averages within them.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  141. syonredux says:
    @dfordoom

    Disagree. Feminists are very much against pedophilia. Indeed, many of them are extremely uncomfortable with just-over-age-of-consent relationships where one partner is significantly older (e.g., a 35 year old man dating an 18 year old girl).

    They’re the Old School feminists though. The TERF-style feminists. And they’re very much out of favour these days.

    Not based on what I’ve observed. All the young WOKE girls on my campus are pro-Trans and anti-Pedo.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  142. Wilkey says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    The next big step after that will criminalizing the refusal to have sex with a homosexual who demands it.

    • Replies: @GermanReader2
  143. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Polygyny is eugenic

    It doesn’t seem to have done much for Africa and the Middle East…..

  144. syonredux says:
    @James J. O'Meara

    Sorry, “conservatives,” your preachers are wrong, if you want hierarchy, you need homosexuality.

    Of course, the Left is pro-Homo…..

  145. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    In poor countries outside of Africa, the sex ratio skews male because males are more economically valuable. Poor countries outside of Africa are agrarian and animal husbandry based, and male labor is necessary for that work. As a result of the male biased sex ratio, there is no surplus of women being offered up to “marginal men”. It’s the exact opposite. There are fewer women to go around for each man.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  146. @SFG

    You’d just get a cold shoulder, you know.

  147. @Jonathan Mason

    Rupert Murdoch is himself a dirty digger with a history of global serial monogamy, who cast his conjugal nets on four continents and is currently married to one of Jagger’s discards.

    I’ve seen white men damn near kill other white men in fights started by the words “sloppy seconds”.

    Jerry Hall isn’t my idea of a suitable wife, but to each his own.

    Jagger is not a particularly kind or decent man, but he is genetically physically and mentally exceptional. I’ve met two of his daughters, they are not stupid and are physically impressive.

    CS Lewis in The Screwtape Letters made the point that the great sinners (of which Jagger at this point is certainly one: we’re all sinners, but he’s grand at it) and the great saints are of a piece, separated only by repentance. I hope he repents before he dies, I suspect Hell for him would be exceptionally bleak indeed.

  148. Altai says:
    @al-Gharaniq

    I think this true too. Once they started pushing to put children onto cosmetic endocrinology without any understanding of what they are doing, it was over. It just became an engine for backlash.

    When Steve perceives these ‘pushes’ I think he is seeing the same one through gay lobby groups. Over decades the infrastructure and lawyers obtained their own logic and like Alexander wept for no more laws to change. There really isn’t any legal battles left to make America less socially defined.

    What new press narratives then? Now that they’re out in the open with their hatred of ethnically homogeneous societies I can imagine it’s going to be more and more mixed people complaining about the BPD they face from having gone to the dwindling majority white schools. Then it will just be that the natives populations in Europe need to go extinct.

    Perhaps that due to it’s legacy emissions being the most, Western countries need to take ‘climate refugees’, probably this will start small with the island nations projected to go under being let into NZ Aus, but over time like with Merkel’s ‘Syrians’, it will encourage anybody to try.

  149. eah says:

    Steve Sailer: “Acceptance of Polygamy Growing on Left” — “I am starting to see how polygamy could line up with today’s most sacred values”

    Swedish Behavioral Scientist (after asking someone to hold his beer): Environmentalists blame the meat and farming industry for a large part of what they claim is the warming of the earth. … Appearing on Swedish television to talk about an event based around the “food of the future,” Magnus Söderlund said he would be holding seminars on the necessity of consuming human flesh in order to stop climate change.

  150. Pericles says:
    @Anon

    She ultimately hints at monogamy, he balks, and she breaks it off.

    Lol, that sure showed him. Whatever will he do until he finds a new Monday?

  151. … Think-of-The-Childrenism ….

    Polygamy is a no-brainer since it involves “consenting adults” and is widely practised among the Left’s favourite pet groups.

    There’s a reason the Left is always harping on about the children: I used to think it was they knew they needed slaves to finance their lofty aims, but now that it is clear that everything is about sexual freedom with them, I’d look for NAMBLA and similar groups to become, in the coming years, as mainstream as the $PLC.

  152. @nebulafox

    Historically a tiny number of men have been homosexual and did their thing “in the closet” and civilized societies looked the other way provided certain things were conceded by the gays. You weren’t a blatant chickenhawk, you didn’t flaunt it, etc. That had little effect.

    “Gay marriage”, public celebrations of gay ‘pride’, et al were a different story. It was obvious from Day One that if a man could marry another man in the legally recognized sense, he could marry a horse, a tree, an attack helicopter, and maybe even a fictional character. It soon then became more or less equally apparent he could marry two women, two men, more than that of either, or any combination of the above thereof.

    The basic stability of a society requires rule of law, and that law must be understandable, make sense to the people it aims to rule, and be seen to be enforced firmly but fairly.

    Different laws will make sense to different people in different lands, according to their religion, their traditions, their mental capacities, and the circumstances under which they live. That’s why there are there are these God-ordained, common sense, obvious things called nations.

    Prohibiting all civilians from owning firearms of any type may make sense in Singapore, but is unacceptable to white men under any and all circumstances. Full stop.

    The Japanese are obsessed with sex, and abortion is seen as an okay form of birth control. No one, including militant pro-life organizations in the US, is bothered by that-in Japan. But absent kritarchial pronouncement of Roe vs.Wade unlimited abortion would be permitted in no US state and many would prohibit it entirely, one or two under penalty of death.

    Someone here said that Protestant rule was better than Catholic rule, which was better than Orthodox (Christian) rule, which was better than Muslim rule. I agree fully with that. I suspect that Muslim (or Mormon or , if they were so inclined Jehovahs’ Witness, or Mormon, or Christian Scientist, or any other heretical deviation from Christianity) rule is better than pagan rule and that pagan rule better than unalloyed anarchy. Most pessimal of all is anarcho-tyranny, in which favored groups like antifa or underclass ghetto thugs may do unto you with impunity but if you retaliate you will be destroyed.

    In Muslim countries, the man who can provide for them can have up to four wives. That, of course, means there will be three young men who won’t have any, unless male infants are aborted or infanticided-or wars thin them out. Is it any wonder the Taliban and Hamas never lack volunteers?

    • Replies: @El Dato
  153. @Rosie

    …Women are not going to object to polygyny …

    Oh yes we are!

    Polygamy is nothing but a fraud. It is totally fake. A man who marries another woman is not taking another wife. He is replacing the one he already has. A forat wife effectively loses all her power in a marriage when another (younger) wife is introduced.

    Agree with Rosie here.

    Women want high status, successful mates, but more importantly the first wives want *ownership* of their husbands and all his labor … forever. The right to divorce rape him if they see fit. It’s hard to square any actually functioning system of polygamy with that. (#1 still gets half if she gets unhappy after a few years of living with #2 around?)

    So since this violates feminist priorities, I don’t really see it taking off as anything beyond its typical minoritarian role–immigrants! muslims! diversity! blacks! screw you Christians!–and just more bodies and welfare clients for the Democrats. Which doesn’t really require any legalization campaign, it’s just another piece of anarko-tyranny we white folks already are forced to tolerate.

    Furthermore, polygamy doesn’t have the same boot-on-the-face character as the gay marriage and “transgender” jihads, where normal productive people are forced to denigrate themselves and mouth nonsense, they find ridiculous and/or offensive. Anthony Daniels pointed out that the purpose of propaganda in communists societies and ours isn’t necessarily to convince but to humiliate and degrade people by making them mouth bullshit.

    Having to pretend some mentally ill freak is a girl does that. Polygamy … yawn. Polygamy is a pretty typical pattern in herder societies, which have lots of male violence and where women are basically just breeding livestock–good for producing male heirs. Read the Old Testament. It’s not the proper solution to a stable civilized society, but having to accept it isn’t abusive. (The presence of these primitives in our society is abusive … but that abuse is already heaped upon us everyday.)

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @anonymous
  154. I have to disagree with what seems to be the majority opinion in this comment thread, viz. that polygamy would be embraced by Leftists looking to subvert the traditional order of society.

    Polygamy was the traditional ordering of society. It was practiced by the biblical patriarchs and permitted by God, which demonstrates that there is no intrinsic moral objection to it. Polygamy also does not violate the natural law as it pertains to sex. This alone places it in a very different boat from things like homosexuality, pedophilia, transgenderism, beastiality, and necrophilia, all of which are perversions of nature.

    It is very hard work just taking care of one wife and offspring, let alone multiple wives and offspring. Anybody who had to do so would almost of necessity come to understand something of real-world economics and power struggles, and the sticky art of managing complex social arrangements. Therein lies a great danger for the Left, against which exposure to reality has always been a primary prophylactic. The whole concept of polygamy is a bit too rugged, too sober, and too masculine to be really compatible with contemporary Leftism. Polygamy is a patriarchal thing, and patriarchies are supposed to be bad, right?

    I would worry more about things like MMT and reparations via wealth redistribution (in plain English, attacks on private property). It’s being pushed pretty hard in academic circles, and trendsetters like Zuckerberg are all aboard.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @Kuk
  155. @Liza

    This behavior is a bad thing and was seen to be a bad thing until maybe the 1960s or so, with the men being called good-time-Charlies…

    Good-time-Charlie Mansons, in fact.

    • LOL: Liza
  156. El Dato says:
    @donvonburg

    …unalloyed anarchy. Most pessimal of all is anarcho-tyranny…

    Anarchy is the absence of central government. Anarcho-tyranny is the existence of corrupt government (and absence of any serious press organization) being hard on people because of random laws about behaviour micro-management, while completely ignoring blatant corruption all through the executive, legislative and judiciary.

  157. @Lot

    Tax code? Ha! They rarely work, and when they do it is either cash, or they have a ton of child deductions.

    The EITC, Child Tax Credit, Additional Dependent Credit, etc. (and the scams that go along with these) work pretty well for these folks.

    https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/eitc-income-limits-maximum-credit-amounts-next-year

    https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/earned-income-tax-credit-calculator.aspx

  158. bomag says:
    @Anon

    Reading that article, all I could think was, “prostitution is now free.”

  159. bomag says:
    @Hopscotch

    Suspect this would be eugenic, all things considered.

    I believe your post just described dysgenics.

  160. bomag says:
    @GSH

    I think it would depend on how divorce laws split up assets.

    As noted elsewhere on this board, the polygamous tend to be the gov’t funded sort, or in other ways outside the legal reach of conventional divorce proceedings.

  161. White liberals are more into polyamory.

  162. black sea says:
    @Anon

    I’m truly shocked to discover . . . that they’re using Facebook.

  163. Pericles says:
    @George

    I think it’s overall better not to take the position that one objects to polygamy because of various practical bureaucratic problems. Don’t worry about that, the bureaucracy will issue regulations when the time comes.

  164. Pericles says:
    @Lurker

    In the state of nature, alphas last a few years then when they weaken get disposed of by their lieutenants.

    I remember reading a poignant story in a book by Franz de Waal where the zoo staff one morning found the former alpha chimp beaten severely and with his nuts chewed off. The perpetrators were his trusted friends who had joined into a coalition. It was the beginning of a new era.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    , @L Woods
  165. Pericles says:
    @International Jew

    The whole refugee/asylum thing is a sham and should be abolished.

  166. Pericles says:
    @njguy73

    Better lifelong cucking by Stacy than enduring faithful plain Jane? Er, I’d go the other way.

    • Replies: @njguy73
  167. @GSH

    I agree with this. Plus, what is the upside to actually being married for these groups anyway? Immigrant and minority groups are more likely to stay unmarried so they can take advantage of public assistance programs or be eligible for special housing. Being married is a costly entanglement that puts these programs out of reach. Marriage is for middle and upper middle class suckers, like me.

  168. eah says:
    @Anon

    struck me as really sad

    It’s not just you.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  169. TTSSYF says:
    @SFG

    Frigid women would finally get some respect.

  170. TTSSYF says:
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, like bin Laden with his 50+ children. It’s a real plus for human species that his genetic material has been spread so far and so wide.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  171. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    This would fit in well with the old Chateau Heartiste take that all of our best/luckiest women will be married off to a few rich, polygamous guys while the rest of the men either get sexbots or nothing.

    If the tech gets good enough the rich guys will choose the high-end sexbots and the low status guys will have to deal with real women. 😉

  172. TTSSYF says:
    @Rosie

    They can’t help it. They’re men, and it’s hard-wired in them to spread their seed as much as possible.

  173. TTSSYF says:
    @Rosie

    It is irritating the way so many commenters on this website talk about humans and human behavior as though they’re watching a million single-celled organisms under a microscope. It’s atheistic for sure.

  174. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    There are fewer women to go around for each man.

    Nice try, but no cigar. The only men that are relevant are the ones who aren’t destitute, and there aren’t nearly enough of those to go around.

    Families basically “sell” their daughters to the highest bidder to recoup the cost of their upbringing, which is seen as resources down the drain.

  175. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    This is not about you. Please stop making everything about yourself. We’re talking about societies, populations, and trends and averages within them.

    You personally attacked me by telling me that I see men as an ATM, so I defended myself.

    As another commenter pointed out, younger men are are viewed as a threat in polygamous communities, precisely because women don’t want dirty old men who already have a wife. We want to build a future with a young man our own age.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  176. Paul says:

    American “progressives” who claim to advocate for women and third-world people are always running into practices that appall most men and women of the West.

  177. @syonredux

    Yeah I read what you wrote the first time. Waiting for you to qualify the statement, however.

    Feminist who harp about pedophilia do so as a means to further their attacks on white males, not because they care about the victims.

    Feminists as a group are also the number one supporter of abortion on demand and late term abortion; it’s hard to spin that fact into “we’re here to protect the children.”

  178. @Mr. Anon

    Hey, cannibalism is just another word for recycling!

  179. Paul says:

    With enough resistance, the Left will backpedle. However, they are always testing the waters.

  180. IHTG says:

    I don’t think it will ever be acceptable among whites, so this sort of “support for polygamy” would really only be a form of anti-racism. The assumption would be that the polygamous Africans would assimilate and grow out of it.

  181. L Woods says:
    @Not My Economy

    Women are not a legitimate judge of what defines a “quality man.”

    • Troll: Rosie
  182. Mr. Anon says:
    @syonredux

    Not based on what I’ve observed. All the young WOKE girls on my campus are pro-Trans and anti-Pedo.

    A lot of trans are probably pedo. And certainly the trans movement is big into the sexualizing of children, in that they advocate “transitions” even for pre-teens. So those girls are pro-pedo too, they just don’t know it. They probably wouldn’t have been pro-trans either. Whatever the homo-elite tell them to believe, they will believe.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  183. @Wilkey

    There are already a lot of op-eds etc. of trans-people and morbidly obese women, who DEMAND that people are attracted to and date them.

  184. @Rosie

    I once read an article about a black African living in France in a polygamous marriage. His wives did not like the situation at all, because they were all living under one roof (in Africa each wife has her own hut) and the husband regularly took all the money they earned with cleaning-jobs and flew to Africa in order to purchase an additional (younger) wife.

  185. @Anonymous

    Polygamy could be either eugenic or disgenic depending on how it is practised. If the highest status-men were smart, law-abiding etc. then it would be eugenic. (You still would have a lot of problems with single men)
    The way it is practised in the Middle East is that a lot of marriages are between men from richer Arab countries and women from poorer Muslim countries, in a lot of cases from Africa (North Africa and Subsahara Africa). I doubt this is eugenic.

  186. Dissident says:
    @SFG

    The irony is that the arrangement is actually detrimental to most members of the gender allowed to have multiple partners–

    One finds a similar irony in other areas as well.

    How many policies that are championed as benefiting “persons of color” and other favored, even sacralized groups actually harm those very people and nations? Consider the following examples. Are Blacks, Browns and women immune from the dangers of being at the mercy of an underqualified doctor, firefighter or police officer? (Affirmative Action) How expendable to third-world countries such as Nigeria, for example, are the massive numbers of their most intelligent, talented, capable and productive citizens that leave every year for the First World? (Mass immigration) Is provoking and inciting Iran and the Palestinians really in the best interest of Jews or Israelis? Or having an organization such as the ADL as the arbiter of what is considered acceptable speech on the dominant Internet platforms?

    Who has been most harmed by “LGBTQ” advocacy?

    Gay Liberation Caused AIDS (An iSteve post and comment thread from June with much germane data)
    HOW THE RADICAL GAY LEFT CAUSED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HOMOSEXUALS TO DIE OF AIDS (David Horowitz)

    – The fiction, far from harmless, that a man can become a woman and vice versa. Perhaps one would defend the indulging of such fantasies and delusions in the case of adults. (I would contend that it constitutes exploitation of the mentally ill and violation of the Hippocratic Oath.) But what about confused children and adolescents being actively indoctrinated, conditioned and steered toward undergoing drastic and irreversible changes?

    [MORE]

    What about the doctrinal assertion that homosexuality is always, without exception, both innate as well as immutable? Or the fiction that any form of homosexuality can ever be equivalent to heterosexuality? Who is most harmed by the acceptance and promotion of such dogma?

    And even if one were to insist– against considerable evidence as well as basic logic and sense– that both of the assertions in-question that I cited above are, in fact, true and harm no one, there would still remain plenty for the “LGBTQ”/Gay Liberation/Buggery lobby to have to answer for.

    There would still be the inescapable consequences that result from pretending that an exclusively eliminatory orifice that is both anatomically as well as physiologically ill-suited to being penetrated can viably function as an equivalent to the female copulatory one (GRAPHIC CONTENT). There would still be the reality of the extensive social pressure, conditioning, and often drugging that is necessary to overcome the instinctive, reflexive repulsion at being anally penetrated. There would still be the predatory exploitation of troubled and confused adolescents and young men who lack self-confidence, self-assertiveness, and a feeling of self-worth and fulfillment; the grooming of such vulnerable, needy souls to serve as “bottoms”, “bottom bitches”, and “slut bottoms” in service to the depraved lusts of older, larger, stronger degenerates and ogres.

    And there would still be the fact that the entrenched Gay and AIDS advocacy establishment has consistently and persistently whitewashed, promoted, and glorified the hideous and dangerous practice of anal penetration while dismissing, denigrating and belittling alternatives such as FROT (see link above) that are not only vastly safer and more hygienic, but also decidedly non-brutal, non-predatory, painless and considerably less violative of masculine dignity than buggery.

  187. @Anon

    At the time of Sodom and Gomorrah, (((G-d))) approved of polygamy. I think that is a significant factor in Karl Barth’s neoorthodox acceptance of polygamy.

    In his treatise “On Marriage,” Barth suggests that Christians should uphold monogamy as an ideal, but that in situations where it would be a barrier to spreading the Gospel, polygamy should not be categorically condemned as sin. I think this is the better part of wisdom on the subject.

    The age of consent is different from homosexuality and polygamy in that pedophilia is pretty universally rejected. Cultures are quite mixed on polygamy, and homosexuality is usually winked at in times and places where culture reaches a high level. But I know of nowhere civilized where true pedophilia has been accepted.

    Now, as for the kind of “pedophilia” that Epstein engaged in–attraction to youthful girls–that is subject to circumstance. For example, we know that girls develop sexually faster under stressful life circumstances–hence pregnant 11-year-olds in the ghetto. That implies that a universal number as age of consent may not make sense.

    As the US becomes a more difficult place to grow up in, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more cases of relationships between adults and mid-teens and maybe some push-back on legal sanctions. (Plenty of commenters on this blog think that female teachers going to jail for statutory rape is often wrong.)

    But the limit will be set by the age at which the “consenting” parties disappear. Epstein is called a pedophile, but he wasn’t. He was just an old-fashioned cad and manipulator. If the girls who spoke out against him hadn’t, nobody would have pursued his case.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    , @Dissident
  188. @prime noticer

    one of the main opposition viewpoints to polygamy is based on stopping people from gaming the welfare system, which is largely what got the mormons shut down. if you allow some guy to not just have 5 kids he can’t support, but have 3 wives and 15 kids he can’t support, your society is in trouble fast if it also has a welfare system.

    In the age of welfare to single mothers this does not change a thing. Polygamy has a major impact on immigration policy, if it allows a man to import up to 4 women to marry, but welfare payments might even be higher for single mothers than for wives in a polygamous marriage.

  189. Che Guava says:
    @syonredux

    Polyamatory is not identical with polygamy.

    With a view from afar, the usual pattern is a pair of muff munchers and a man as the third wheel.

    See the old film Chasing Amy for an idea of how it turns out. I have never been in such a situation, but the film seems pretty realistic to me.

    I must say, that is purely an impression, but it seems accurate on ‘polyamory’, except Muslim, and possibly returning, Mormon polygamy (though any reader knows that the latter never ended).

    Ilhan Omar’s various immigration crimes would be funny if there was prosecution, but we all know there won’t be. However, she broke laws on both marriage and declarations.

    I want to go back a little further, well before my time. Alan Ginsberg, composer of doggerel to match that of Emma Lazarus, was a founding member of NAMBLA.

    In the late seventies and early eighties of the last century, homosexual paedophiles, both men and women joined the queue to get their ‘rights’, and in some places, almost managed it.

    The fact that the whale Lena Dunham has never been charged for molesting her little sister is interesting.

    So, special rights. partly from being Jewish, and pasrtly fron being homosexualising (moron Dunham’s sister emerged fron the experience as a confirmed homosexual, although I would guess that does not preclude a marriage to an ugly Jew with much money, she could marry Susan Sontag, etc.. if the latter were still alive.

    • Replies: @SFG
  190. @Rosie

    Hey, Rosie, how about some stats? We sausage-festers love numbers, ya know?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  191. JMcG says:
    @syonredux

    Women are very, very anti pedophile. Feminists are a different story altogether. They couldn’t give a tinker’s damn about males of any stripe with the possible exception of their own sons. Committed feminists are utterly ridiculous.

  192. JMcG says:
    @prime noticer

    As it also is with open borders.

  193. JMcG says:
    @Jack D

    Jack, that was an awful thing to say.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  194. Dissident says:
    @SFG

    [This is a replacement for the previous comment I submitted, in which the formatting got messed-up.]

    The irony is that the arrangement is actually detrimental to most members of the gender allowed to have multiple partners–

    One finds a similar irony in other areas as well.

    How many policies that are championed as benefiting “persons of color” and other favored, even sacralized groups actually harm those very people and nations? Consider the following examples. Are Blacks, Browns and women immune from the dangers of being at the mercy of an underqualified doctor, firefighter or police officer? (Affirmative Action) How expendable to third-world countries such as Nigeria, for example, are the massive numbers of their most intelligent, talented, capable and productive citizens that leave every year for the First World? (Mass immigration) Is provoking and inciting Iran and the Palestinians really in the best interest of Jews or Israelis? What about the implications of having an organization such as the ADL serve as the arbiter of what is considered acceptable speech on the dominant Internet platforms?

    Who has been most harmed by “LGBTQ” advocacy?

    Gay Liberation Caused AIDS (An iSteve post and comment thread from June with much germane data)
    HOW THE RADICAL GAY LEFT CAUSED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HOMOSEXUALS TO DIE OF AIDS (David Horowitz)

    – The fiction, far from harmless, that a man can become a woman and vice versa. Perhaps one would defend the indulging of such fantasies and delusions in the case of adults. (I would contend that it constitutes exploitation of the mentally ill and violation of the Hippocratic Oath.) But what about confused children and adolescents being actively indoctrinated, conditioned and steered toward undergoing drastic and irreversible changes?

    [MORE]

    What about the doctrinal assertion that homosexuality is always, without exception, both innate as well as immutable? Or the fiction that any form of homosexuality can ever be equivalent to heterosexuality? Who is most harmed by the acceptance and promotion of such dogma?

    And even if one were to insist– against considerable evidence as well as basic logic and sense– that both of the assertions in-question that I cited above are, in fact, true and harm no one, there would still remain plenty for the “LGBTQ”/Gay Liberation/Buggery lobby to have to answer for.

    There would still be the inescapable consequences that result from pretending that an exclusively eliminatory orifice that is both anatomically as well as physiologically ill-suited to being penetrated can viably function as an equivalent to the female copulatory one (GRAPHIC CONTENT). There would still be the reality of the extensive social pressure, conditioning, and often drugging that is necessary to overcome the instinctive, reflexive repulsion at being anally penetrated. There would still be the predatory exploitation of troubled and confused adolescents and young men who lack self-confidence, self-assertiveness, and a feeling of self-worth and fulfillment; the grooming of such vulnerable, needy souls to serve as “bottoms”, “bottom bitches”, and “slut bottoms” in service to the depraved lusts of older, larger, stronger degenerates and ogres.

    And there would still be the fact that the entrenched Gay and AIDS advocacy establishment has consistently and persistently whitewashed, promoted, and glorified the hideous and dangerous practice of anal penetration while dismissing, denigrating and belittling alternatives such as FROT (see link above) that are not only vastly safer and more hygienic, but also decidedly non-brutal, non-predatory, painless and considerably less violative of masculine dignity than buggery.

  195. anonymous[105] • Disclaimer says:

    Yah, I’ve been saying this for at least 5 years. Socially accepted polygamy (which practically will mean polygyny 99% of the time) checks a lot of boxes for the present Identitarian Left.

    i) First and foremost, it raises status most for the people who are right at the tippy top of the intersectional stack: Muslim, black, immigrants. They are already doing it of course, but soon they won’t have to pretend they aren’t, won’t risk deportation for getting sloppy with it, and will even get ‘cool’ points for doing so.

    ii) Secondly, but probably more importantly, by removing the remaining little bit of social affirmation attached to a woman eventually obtaining the exclusive devotion of a man, it cuts the last thread that was still giving the bottom 95% of heterosexual men any leverage or value whatsoever in the sexual / romantic marketplace. It hastens the future where NBA players, Hollywood stars, and billionaires maintain harems of dozens of women while the rest of society’s men make due with porn, video games, and whatever else.

    That of course then removes the last bit of a role that most men have in a family.

    Win!

    (side note: an interesting phenomenon is that there will be a brief transitional period where nerdy men who are willing to jump on the ‘alternative lifestyle’ bandwagon early, such as Geoffrey Miller is already doing, will experience a temporary increase in sexual market value, as freaky hippy/hipster chicks decide to try out the novelty of polyandry and find these men to be willing accomplices. However as the social changes sort out those same women will soon realize that they can instead enjoy the (divided) attention of a very high status male with no social stigma or personal loathing, and will have no further romantic use for the nerdy ‘early adopter’ men.)

  196. @SFG

    No doubt inspiration for the article came from the intellectual environment at NR.

  197. anonymous[105] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    the first wives want *ownership* of their husbands and all his labor

    But this is largely because we currently in our culture have some amount of social affirmation for women who do the whole landing loving prince charming fairy tale wedding thing, and some amount of social stigma for women who choose instead to be another side piece of an athlete, celebrity, or CEO.

    If you remove that affirmation and stigma by making polygamy socially accepted, then maybe women won’t “want” what they currently want.

  198. teo toon says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I always thought Harley Motorcycles could make billions by attaching a dildo to the front seat: eliminate the middle man, so to speak.

  199. @Paleo Liberal

    Of course the obvious point is, poly relationships make child rearing a bit difficult.

    IMO most leftists see that as a feature and not a bug.

  200. njguy73 says:
    @Pericles

    Yes, probably men would be more content the way you prefer. And I keep hearing that women would rather have five minutes of Chad than five decades of Joe.

  201. Pericles says:
    @Pericles

    In the state of nature, one should furthermore note it is comme il faut to kill the offspring of the previous alpha male when you assume the throne. Those who can run for it better run.

  202. Pericles says:

    In general, polygamy doesn’t lead to harems full of supermodels lounging about in luxury, but to uglier, fatter and also poorer women.

    Strategy note: We should instead try to preserve our pool of white, beautiful, monogamous women. For our own exclusive use, of course.

  203. syonredux says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The whole concept of polygamy is a bit too rugged, too sober, and too masculine to be really compatible with contemporary Leftism. Polygamy is a patriarchal thing, and patriarchies are supposed to be bad, right?

    Spend some time on WOKE sites (say, The Mary Sue); they’re very enthusiastic about polyamory, the 2.o version of polygamy……

  204. my4wives says:

    Monogamous marriage is an institution that has outlived its utility. For most of recorded history, at least in the West, low-status men did not have the means to marry, and Christian morality kept most of them from reproducing outside of marriage. In that social context, monogamous marriage was useful to promote civilization. High-status men reproduced. Low-status men did not.

    However, in the context of the amoral, modern welfare state, monogamous marriage has become dysgenic. One need only tour local trailer parks or low-income housing projects to confirm this fact. The introduction to Idiocracy was funny because it revealed a truth we all know.

    I have come around to endorsing polygamy as the only remaining means to address this issue. Society would be far better off if many of the low-status men who inhabit these abodes did not have access to women for the purpose of reproduction. Allowing high-status men to have multiple wives and multiple families is the only solution I see to the dysgenic sufferings of our current social order.

  205. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @Rosie

    “The only men that are relevant are the ones who aren’t destitute, and there aren’t nearly enough of those to go around.”

    Reference please.

  206. @Anonymous

    The other thing is to treat civil marriage like any other contract rather than marriage 2.0 like Dalrock refers to it as. Every single business contract such as a corporation or partnership has a clause in it for dissolution. This should not be a surprise to any one in business but if they marry its completely alien.

    A Marriage proposal / contract would be like one long enforceable pre- nup where the assets would be split up base on how each side performed and who brought what to the table. If two gays wanted to marry so be it and their agreement would probably look a certain way. If two straight Christians married, that would probably look another way. If people just wanted to cohabitate then there would be no agreement.

    The other super important part of this is that we have to reform the custody laws. There should be a presumption of shared equal custody. Most of the fighting in a divorce centers around the children because who controls them, ends up controlling the marital assets such as the house, etc.

    Both of these together would gut the leverage feminists have over men making it a far more equal playing field. who can argue against that?

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  207. anonymous[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @prime noticer

    i would guess that legalizing prostitution would be first, before this.

    The track record on this is actually the opposite, lately. Several “woke” countries such as Canada and Sweden have recently moved in the other direction, having formerly had legal prostitution but now making purchasing illegal while keeping selling technically legal. It’s a huge woke win – men go to jail and get reputational ruin for trying out a loophole in the sexual marketplace, while women walk free to do whatever they want.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  208. @Anon

    On the other hand ephebophilia, sexual attraction primarily to mid to late adolescents, around age 15 or above, is what we saw in Epstein, and I could see this being pushed for by the cosmopolitan elite. Although epehebophilia means a mostly exclusive attraction to mid-to-late adolescents, the normal attraction to adults, teleiophilia, usually overlaps considerably with attraction to late adolescents, and is constrained more by social and cultural norms than by its being abnormal per se. The idea that normal people are disgusted by the idea of sex with late adolescents is silly on its face, since the distinction in law is an arbitrary age, different everywhere, and which doesn’t correspond to the physical development of the child.

    I doubt that the tide of sexual liberation will not envelop acceptance of mid to late teens having sex with non-peers (I mean adults well over eighteen).

    It’s also the case that these sexual relationships in the homosexual subculture are de rigueur and to them a rather normal part of their sexual awakenings – teens cruising the known gay pickup areas looking for sexual adventure with other boys and men. It would be a logical extension of Gay Liberation, but they’d have to cloak it in some universally applicable language so that the man-boy aspect would be deemed to be only an incidental effect.

    • Replies: @Dissident
  209. consanguinity laws will be next

  210. Mike1 says:
    @Wilkey

    In general your points are very accurate. I think you are talking growth in terms of overall US population.
    If you look at the reproductive success (ignoring the quality) the polygamist groups have done incredibly well. They all seem to come from a couple of families and have turned into groups thousands of people strong.
    What is also amazing is how untouchable they are. They are clearly engaging in statutory rape with close to no consequence.

  211. L Woods says:
    @Pericles

    Ah, justice. That it exists more among animals than man says so very much.

  212. L Woods says:
    @nebulafox

    Judging by the number of married men that still exist, that doesn’t seem to be much of an issue.

  213. L Woods says:
    @njguy73

    This is not a gender interchangeable phenomenon. Don’t be dishonest.

    • Replies: @njguy73
  214. Corn says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    “I think it was Chateau Heartiste who predicted that, once homosexual marriage was legalized, homosexual conceptions of marital fidelity (pretty loose) would be transferred to heterosexual marriage.”

    Oh yeah. I remember a few years back, back when gay marriage was a matter of debate rather than the law of the land, that sex columnist Dan Savage (who’s gay) wrote an op-ed basically saying that gays should be allowed to marry but this whole monogamy thing had to go.

    • Replies: @Dissident
  215. @Anonymous

    Anthony M. Ludovici argued that incest did a lot of good for the Egyptian dynasties, and that if you weed out the bad homozygotic (or whatever the term is) matches you can reproduce very successfully for centuries. As this is hardly my specialty, I make no evaluation.

  216. Would this work both ways? It would be sexist to say a woman couldn’t marry more than one man, so would plural marriage laws apply to both men and women equally? If so a woman could be married to four men who, in turn, are each married to multiple women who are also married to multiple men, and so on. It would create weird webs of marriages.

  217. Corn says:
    @Clifford Brown

    “many of the men in these relationships seemed like passive sad sacks”

    I don’t know any polyamorists myself but it strikes me as just plain weird. When I’ve seen polyamorists interviewed on tv they strike me as the outcasts of society banding together for mutual support. Like two guys who are at Lewis Skolnick levels of nerdiness dating some fat sack of potatoes gal who’s no slouch in the nerd department herself.

    Or some creepy Jim Jones-esque guy will be with two women… who are usually off their meds.

    “it seemed that the more these women were liberated from monogamy and sexual limitations, the more they dressed like they wanted to be tied down”

    This has been discussed on Heartiste’s site and elsewhere. It’s like the bigger a ball busting feminist is outside of the bedroom, the more submissive a dishrag she is in the bedroom.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @SFG
  218. I don’t think either polygamy or polyamory is the goal. I think leftist thought has always been geared towards free love, which is really just a loosening of morals and the destruction of all personal relationships and sexual responsibility. What’s not to like? The government/ruling class gets to act as the leader of one big family, and anyone from anywhere can waltz in and have a place at the table or in the bed? I have a sneaking suspicion that our rulers will care about who they couple with, their background, and their fidelity.

  219. @Jack D

    “As with most things involving immigrants, the facts on the ground are well beyond what the legal system or the public recognizes.”

    So true!

  220. L Woods says:
    @Wilkey

    They do have lots of kids, but when the boys hit puberty the elders start throwing many of them out, using almost any excuse imaginable. Boys present sexual competition to the old men who want to take more wives.

    The mainstream practices a version of this with Permanent Records, speech codes, various unwritten rules, and factors that heavily weight the scales in favor of early bloomers.

  221. L Woods says:
    @eah

    Single, but most assuredly not celibate.

  222. Big Bill says:

    As far as “fornication” and “adultery” being banned under Islam, don’t forget they also have the institution of temporary marriages. You tell a single girl “I will marry you for $X for Y weeks”, and if she says “yes” (and you aren’t going over your four-wife-limit), what you do with her for the next week is neither “adultery” nor “fornication” since you are husband and wife. Nor do you have any continuing obligation of support for her OR any child, once the week is up.

    This works as long as there is no father figure present. If she is a child of divorce (living with mom), or a bastard (no dad around), or in a care home, or in foster care and her daddy is nowhere around, then her permission is all you need. Which explains why the Rotherham Pakis were cruising for street kids and care homes for young girls.

    I got the details from a British “Ask the Imam” website about 5-10 years ago. Some young Muslim dude wrote in and said he wanted to remain a devout and law abiding Muslim, but really wanted to pork some English girl.

  223. Tipsy says:

    One of the first return salvos in the culture war’s battle against monogamy was William Tucker’s “Monogamy and its Discontents”, which was published back in 1993.

    http://djole.altervista.org/djole/SchoolPage/TCC/101/ReadNotes/MonogamyDiscontents.htm

    An excellent essay; nevertheless, it lightly touches on polygamy and doesn’t go into too much detail. He followed up with additional essays showing the various social pathologies that often are associated with polygamous societies (high rates of consanguinous marriages, tribalism, sexual violence, etc.).

    Still, the article is insightful and very quotable. I leave you with its conclusion:

    Family values are basically the belief that monogamy is the most peaceful and progressive way of organizing a human society. Dislike and distaste for anything that challenges the monogamous contract easy divorce, widespread pornography, legalized prostitution, out-of-wedlock child bearing, blatant homosexuality-are not just narrow or prudish concerns. They come from an intelligent recognition that the monogamous contract is a fragile institution that can easily unravel if dissaffections become too widespread.

    What is likely to happen if we abandon these values? People will go on reproducing, you can be sure of that. But families won’t be formed (“litters” might be a more appropriate term). And the human beings that are produced in these litters will not be quite the same either. If marriage is a compromise between men and women, then the breakdown of monogamy can only let loose the natural egocentrisms of both.

    It is probably not too alarmist to note that societies that have been unable to establish monogamy have also been unable to create working democracies or widely distributed wealth. No society that domesticates too few men can have a stable social order. People who are incapable of monogamy are probably incapable of many other things as well.

    As a basically limiting human compact, monogamous marriage is bound to produce its peculiar difficulties. As with any compromise, each individual can argue based on present or previous deprivation, real or imagined-that he or she should not be bound by the rules.

    Yet it should also be clear that, beyond the personal dissatisfactions we all may feel, each of us also retains a permanent, private stake in sustaining a system that creates a peaceful social order and offers to everyone a reasonable chance of achieving personal happiness. If monogamy makes complex demands on human beings, it also offers unique and complex rewards.

  224. @Mr. Anon

    Think-of-The-Childrenism

    Related, but unable to find the specific article, is the argument that everyone should share in the rearing of far fewer children, For The Environment!, cuz, you know, it takes a village and all that.

  225. @SFG

    (This is something the guys fantasizing about polygamy never realize.)

    I don’t watch a lot of TV but a number of years ago binge-watched most of “Big Love”. That poor guy (Bill Paxton with his three wives) never had a minute of peace – wives yapping at him, fighting with each other, two of them ganging up on the other. It had a strong anti-polygamy message even if it didn’t intend to.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  226. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    You’re just mouthing platitudes.

    Youth is not the chief or even a primary quality sought after by women, like it is by men. Women do choose older men who have been divorced or are with other women over young men based on other criteria.

    There are plenty of young men out there who would love to “build a future” with any of these women, but for some strange, unfathomable reason, they prefer spending time with a much older man named Leonardo DiCaprio (the latest is less than half his age). Women are a mystery.

    • Replies: @nymom
    , @AnotherDad
  227. @Hodag

    Scott was moping at one point about losing his “main” in his “group,” so it sounds more like a bunch of people hanging out together, like on Big Bang Theory only with more sexual vectors. As opposed to two people in an “open” relationship or marriage.

    I’m expecting not quite polygamy but open marriages with the husband meekly submitting to this arrangement — even though he knows his female partner will be the one getting 99 percent of the outside action.

  228. Law enforcement and DAs love age of consent laws. The crime is clearly defined and easy to convict. “She’s sixteen your honor!” Even if the 16 year old admits to lying about her age, the guy goes to prison.

  229. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    A future conservative Supreme Court may punt the issue, but maintaining the ban on polygamy is untenable now that gay marriage is federally protected by Obergefell v. Hodges.

    Maybe as a matter of principle. Politically-speaking, however, it’s not happening. Women will object. Vigorously. At the polls.

  230. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    “I think it was Chateau Heartiste who predicted that…”

    And that was your first mistake, relying on the “advice” of an over 40 year old man who never married and does not have any children.

    “and the legalization of polygamy is probably no further away than 2025, 2030 at the latest.”

    I will be you a sawbuck that by 2030 that NOT one single American state currently in our union will legalize polygamy. Let me make sure to define polygamy as a starting point– the act or condition of a person marrying another person while still being lawfully married to another spouse. As this is the very definition of bigamy, it is illegal in the United States.

    Are you game?

    • Replies: @Alden
  231. @James J. O'Meara

    And you’ve got an Irish surname, huh?

    Typical post-colonial Irish cuck. You’ll never appease your English masters for giving up your historical faith for insane liberalism.

  232. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:

    And none of you ever mentioned the true source of the rot.

    You guys love talking about pedos, gays, trannies, Muslim bigamists, and polyamory liberals.

    You know where this all started? No-fault divorce.

    If you guys think that heterosexuality is the keystone of marriage, it’s not. Rather, permanence (barring extreme situations such as cheating or abuse) is the keystone of marriage. Once Reagan destroyed permanent marriage in California, all the bricks fell down.

    So being against gays, trannies, and Muzzie bigamists is all a waste of time and effort. You want to bring traditional marriage back? Get rid of no-fault divorce.

    If you can end a marriage unilaterally for no reason at all, marriage becomes just a useless piece of paper.

  233. nymom says:

    It’s almost a moot issue since very few people are getting married today. Everyone just lives together and/or has children together and then moves on whenever one gets tired of the other or just meets someone more attractive, more money or better housing/employment prospects etc…

    Again I understand our divorce rate is actually much higher than the current ‘half of all marriages end in divorce rate’ because they factor in the old school marriages (where people remain married for 50/60 years) in with the new marriages when they work the numbers.

    So this is truly a moot issue at this point in our society…

  234. nymom says:
    @Anonymous

    That’s true women are not looking for youth so much as financial security (a good provider)…

  235. Pericles says:
    @anonymous

    Several “woke” countries such as Canada and Sweden have recently moved in the other direction, having formerly had legal prostitution but now making purchasing illegal while keeping selling technically legal.

    A lopsided bad law, of course, but even so I can’t say I’ve seen a lot of johns in the papers since it was introduced. It could be the prostitutes all things considered prefer to keep their client base. With the current law I guess the police furthermore have lost the obvious way to twist their arms and make them squeal.

    NB: In case you wonder, the prostitution rings that get exposed in the papers are basically only foreigners, such as nonspecific ‘eastern europeans’, thai massage parlors, also some coloreds.

  236. Pericles says:
    @William Badwhite

    That poor guy (Bill Paxton with his three wives) never had a minute of peace – wives yapping at him, fighting with each other, two of them ganging up on the other.

    The sentence for bigamy is being married to two wives.

    • Replies: @Alden
  237. Jack D says:
    @JMcG

    I just like pissing off Rosie. Works every time, like clockwork.

  238. Alden says:
    @Bill P

    Agree agree agree.

    The very first equal rights amendment was proposed in the 1920s by the national association of manufacturers chamber of commerce hotel owners associations.

    They wanted to overturn some early 1900s laws preventing women workers from working unpaid overtime, 7 days a week every week etc.
    The labor movement ended that 1920s plan .

    40 years later the “ capitalist pig exploiters of the working class” tried again and succeeded in making all but union workers work 80 hours a week for 40 hours pay.

    I’m a who benefits? what’s the result ? what’s behind the propaganda? person. Feminazis were just “ running dogs” of the anti labor movement. Running dog is a servile accomplice

    • Agree: dfordoom
  239. Alden says:
    @Pericles

    Laugh out loud. The old time Chinese thought 4 wives was ideal.

    1 wife just too much work to be a companion to husband work in the family business raise the kids do the house and farm work or supervise the help that does the work.

    2 wives gang up on the husband.

    3 wives 2 wives gang up on 1 of the wives constantly changing alliances husband constantly trying and failing to make peace children suffer.

    4 wives is ideal it’s always 2 wives against 2 wives who care for each other’s kids and the husband has peace and quiet
    Hopefully

  240. Alden says:
    @Corvinus

    I agree. Good for you. It’s amazing how many sad old elderly bachelors with no children never lived with a woman not even roommates never owned a home don’t even cook meals pontificate about marriage child raising and household management

  241. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Q: What will be the next frontier in degeneracy to be crossed?
    A: Whatever will hasten the collapse of society the most.

    Polygamy attacks marriage, the foundation on which family formation is based. But polygamy attracts individuals who are already degenerate, so no great possibilities for hastening societal collapse there.

    Pedophilia (removal of age of consent laws) attacks the bond between parents and children, because it allows degenerate outsiders to compromise children without recourse by the parents. Pedophilia destroys existing families; much more useful in hastening societal collapse.

    Q: What will be the next frontier in degeneracy to be crossed?
    A: Pedophilia. Expect something along these lines in the next Papal encyclical.

  242. Alden says:
    @Corn

    Charles Manson had an obedient harem and look where he ended up.

  243. SFG says:
    @L Woods

    I was referring less to the media elites pushing it than the average guys who think, “Hey, I can have multiple wives!” No, you can’t. Bill Gates and Mick Jagger will.

  244. SFG says:
    @Rosie

    I have some sympathy, because the interests of men and women do conflict, and you are outnumbered here.

    But since the 3-comment limit hit me especially hard (I have a lot more time to read this stuff than I do to comment on it), it kinda pissed me off.

  245. Alden says:
    @Kronos

    Betty Friedan was activist in the communist and socialist clubs in college. Then she went to work for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers as a propagandist. IBEW also subsided her 1950s articles in women’s homemaking magazines and that book she wrote.

    For a long time, IBEW, like the CIO, Longshoremen and others was a communist front as well as a regular labor union. The communists picked the electrical industry early on.

    The idea was electrical workers could close down a city electrical supply and interfere with telegraph radio phone TV shortwave and military circuits and communications if and when the Soviets conquered America.

    The conservatives and capitalists were always concerned the Teamsters would go on strike and close down truck freight. That’s nothing compared to what the Soviets knew electricians could do to a country.

    Soviets hoped but it never happened.

    Soviets were always making plans about what city bus and train workers could do in Europe in case of invasion. Drive city buses to roads outside military buses dynamite them to debris which would prevent the army from sending troops to fight the Soviets. Make locomotives dysfunctional to prevent troop movements. And of course mess with telegraph radio phone and other communications.

    The feminazis changed from good little communists to good little capitalists dedicated to increasing the work force, lowering wages, destroying the family and sending pre school children off to indoctrination camps.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  246. SFG says:
    @Che Guava

    This is one of the few cases where my greater tolerance for liberal BS is actually useful.

    There was a book, The Polyamorists Next Door, that was looking at it as it was actually practiced sub rosa by social-justice types in deep blue states. Of course the author had gone through polyamory herself, though it didn’t work out for her. The tone was mixed enough it didn’t immediately set off the BS detector.

    Basically, lesbians didn’t want to participate because men would hit on them, and gay men had their own thing going already, so it was straights and bi people. Bi men were apparently of lower status, supposedly because of ‘gender role stereotype persistence’ (I suspect fear of HIV was the real motivator). So it went bi women > straight women > straight men > bi men as far as status goes.

    Feminism aside (though I’m sure that was part of it), if women can date either women or men but men can only date women, women are going to have more options and hence more bargaining power.

    As for NAMBLA and the Jews? Could be. I suspect Dunham’s sister didn’t want to press charges and with no complaining victim and a perp who could make their lives hell with her media connections, no cop would touch the case.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  247. SFG says:
    @Corn

    That was my brief experience when my old ‘nerd herd’ started playing around with polyamory back in the mid to late 90s.

    There’s always been a shortage of female nerds, and the ratio was even more lopsided back then. So if you have people who don’t really care that much about societal strictures and you have an unequal gender ratio…yeah, the guys are going to share.

    Being something of a conservative even back then (I was actually called the only member of the group’s right wing), I was horrified and cut contact with a lot of them.

    Jim Jones-type men and women off their meds…never went there, so I can’t comment.

    Submissive dishrag…not really. They have some fantasy about being dominated by a guy, and they launder it through the ‘transgressive’ coding of kink, basically. I think high-T women just have rougher tastes, being high-T, after all. A lot of them would like an even higher-T guy, but those guys avoid those types of women like the plague.

    The nerdy ones aren’t too bad interpersonally–they’re not feminine but they ironically pick up a few of the masculine virtues like straightforwardness and honesty, having a few spectrum traits. Problem is you have to give up a lot in terms of looks. After all, a female nerd has a lot of other options, so she really has no incentive to stay thin.

  248. Kronos says:
    @Alden

    “The feminazis changed from good little communists to good little capitalists dedicated to increasing the work force, lowering wages, destroying the family and sending pre school children off to indoctrination camps.”

    Are there any books that help chronicle that 180 degree turn?

    I mean, this is the closest book I’m aware of that helps explain the mental shift from the Democratic Party’s helping/protecting workers to signing off to Clinton Neoliberalism. That led to an unprecedented exportation of millions of jobs.

  249. @Chrisnonymous

    But the limit will be set by the age at which the “consenting” parties disappear. Epstein is called a pedophile, but he wasn’t. He was just an old-fashioned cad and manipulator. If the girls who spoke out against him hadn’t, nobody would have pursued his case.

    It is a bit unfair to call Epstein a pedophile, or Prince Andrew, for that matter, since the legal age of consent in the UK is 16, but where this argument falls down legally is that under the international convention on the Rights of the Child, any paid sexual activity with a minor under the age of 18, that is prostitution, is considered to be sexual abuse of a child.

    Furthermore, for US citizens, traveling overseas for the purposes of having paid sex with a minor under the age of 18 is a pretty serious federal offense, and it seems to me like Epstein would have had a case to answer regarding use of the Lolita Express to that end.

    So the most important question is whether Epstein was paying for sex in cash or in kind.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    , @Chrisnonymous
  250. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @TTSSYF

    Bin Laden was the scion of one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest families and made himself one of the most famous/infamous men in the world.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  251. @Anonymous

    Looks like a heterosexual male to me.

    However, the point of all that delicious thrusting is … children. And he’s a zero. I think his ten year gap with Bar Rafaeli–launching into a family at 35/25 would have been reasonable.

    I don’t know anything about the actual personal quality of these girls. But he really should not keep this up. At some point–and he’s heading there–even being Lenardo DeCaprio won’t get you a sexy and high-quality 22 year old because she’ll want to be with a younger successful guy. And while he’ll still no doubt have lots of cute girls still throwing themselves at him, they’ll just be the gold-diggers.

    • Agree: GermanReader2
  252. @Prof. Woland

    The other thing is to treat civil marriage like any other contract …

    A Marriage proposal / contract would be like one long enforceable pre- nup …

    The other super important part of this is that we have to reform the custody laws. There should be a presumption of shared equal custody. Most of the fighting in a divorce centers around the children because who controls them, ends up controlling the marital assets such as the house, etc.

    Both of these together would gut the leverage feminists have over men making it a far more equal playing field. who can argue against that?

    Absolutely excellent comment Professor.

    The highlighted part on custody is at the root of the issue. Marriage is in trouble because–most states–women can blow them up at will and walk off with the most important aspects of the marriage to them–their kids, a house to raise them and their ex-husbands paycheck to pay for it all. Joint custody … and suddenly both sides lose big in divorce–as it should be. (Don’t like that–don’t do it.)

    To the who can argue against fairness … well the feminists of course. No surprise there.

    Ironically, the whole “gay marriage” which strips marriage of any inherent “gendered” character, could–very ironically!– be used bey real conservatives/traditionalists to end divorce rape and hence put some spine back into marriages. Of course that requires conservatives to stop the weepy kowtowing to women, pretending women today are 1950s housewives and “innocent victims”, and start acting–like men–to actually conserve this critical institution.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  253. Pericles says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    It is a bit unfair to call Epstein a pedophile, or Prince Andrew, for that matter, since the legal age of consent in the UK is 16 … So the most important question is whether Epstein was paying for sex in cash or in kind.

    Perhaps serial statutory rapist is a more suitable term for most of what Epstein did. But you know what they say … screw one dog and what do they call you? And Jeffy and his egg-shaped penis seems to also have screwed a number of shiksas under the UK age of consent, if that’s the deciding factor. (No big deal, middle aged pakis do that all the time right yeah?)

    As for the second part, no, that’s hardly the most important question.

  254. @Jonathan Mason

    I ‘m not really addressing Epstein. He clearly broke the law. My question is at what point (of descending ages) the ick factor would kick in to motivate non-interested parties to pursue a legal case. I submit that point is when consent disappears in fact rather than in theory. In Epstein’s case, many of the girls clearly must have consented. They weren’t children stuck in a child-care facility. They were just immature and desperate girls, not so different from 18+ year old escorts.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  255. TTSSYF says:
    @Anonymous

    No kidding. I still don’t think it’s a good idea that he populated the earth with 50+ children, despite his inherited wealth and infamy. It’s highly likely that at least a few of them share his hatred of infidels.

    And by the way…what ever happened to his BFF, the doctor, Ayman al Zawahiri? No mention of him for years.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  256. Che Guava says:
    @SFG

    NAMBLA and Jews? Except for Ginsburg, I had no such intention.

    Associatiang the fat slug/slag Dunham with paedo-behavior is purely based on her own words, actions, and results.

    If the stupid Disney Studios of now keeps piling crap on Star Wars, she would make an excellent descendant of Jabba the Hutt.

  257. syonredux says:
    @James J. O'Meara

    Actually, the norm across nature/history is “women will be married off to a few rich, polygamous guys

    Do as the Blacks do, eh? Perhaps we should, instead, look to the Romans:

    Marriage in ancient Rome (conubium) was a strictly monogamous institution: a Roman citizen by law could have only one spouse at a time. The practice of monogamy distinguished the Greeks and Romans from other ancient civilizations, in which elite males typically had multiple wives. Greco-Roman monogamy may have arisen from the egalitarianism of the democratic and republican political systems of the city-states. It is one aspect of ancient Roman culture that was embraced by early Christianity, which in turn perpetuated it as an ideal in later Western culture.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

  258. syonredux says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Not based on what I’ve observed. All the young WOKE girls on my campus are pro-Trans and anti-Pedo.

    A lot of trans are probably pedo. And certainly the trans movement is big into the sexualizing of children, in that they advocate “transitions” even for pre-teens. So those girls are pro-pedo too, they just don’t know it. They probably wouldn’t have been pro-trans either. Whatever the homo-elite tell them to believe, they will believe.

    There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance on the Left, sure…..But I just can’t see legalizing sex with nine-year olds making much headway….At least not in the current climate….On the other hand, I could see movement on the genital mutilation front…..Why should 12-year olds have to wait until they are 18 to get their penises and testicals lopped off and replaced with pseudo-vaginas….

  259. @Chrisnonymous

    In Epstein’s case, many of the girls clearly must have consented. They weren’t children stuck in a child-care facility. They were just immature and desperate girls, not so different from 18+ year old escorts.

    Right, we all know that, but from a legal point of view a minor under the age of 18 cannot consent to paid sexual activity. We don’t have to resort to the “yuck factor test”.

    This is complicated a bit because most states in the US do not allow paid sexual activity at any age, but paid sexual activity with a minor is a definitely a federal offense if there is any crossing of state or federal lines involved–though again there are differences, and it must be much harder to prosecute if the sexual offenses occurred overseas and involved witnesses who, for reasons like not having a visa, cannot appear in a US court.

    Paid sex may also be an offense on the part of the minor, and there may be collateral offenses such as federal income tax evasion or failure to file for income taxes or to pay self employment taxes. Many such offenders end up under the care of state juvenile justice departments and then are released when they turn 18.

  260. njguy73 says:
    @L Woods

    I did concede, in my response to Pericles’ response to my post, that women are more likely to be willing to share a lover than a man would be. The way trends are headed, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the polyamory-tolerance gap narrowed over the next few decades. If only due to societal pressure to appear open-minded.And to any argument that men are less vulnerable to social proof than women, well, just look around you. You don’t see men, or liberal men mostly, acting more like women?

    “Polyamory-tolerance gap.”

    Steve, that one’s on me.

  261. @istevefan

    Unfortunately most people base their opinions on an issue to the the immediate timing of when it is enacted and don’t seem to connect the dots the further time advances…

    So the Left realizes that if you enact a policy and the wheels don’t fall off the next day, you have a better chance of keeping that policy than if you had asked the voters for approval in the first place.

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

    One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

    • Replies: @ziggurat
  262. Dissident says:
    @Corn

    I remember a few years back, back when gay marriage was a matter of debate rather than the law of the land, that sex columnist Dan Savage (who’s gay) wrote an op-ed basically saying that gays should be allowed to marry but this whole monogamy thing had to go.

    Concerning Dan Savage, I wonder how many iSteve readers are aware that the advice on sexual matters that he offers in his syndicated column is not limited to homosexuals.

    Also,
    https://americansfortruth.com/issues/dan-savage/

    Dan Savage’s “Progressive” Hate: When it comes to dishing out “progressive” hate, few activists on the Left can match the antics of Dan Savage, homosexual-bisexual-transgender activist, sex columnist, author and pornographer. Here is a graphic from Savage’s hate-site, Santorum.com–which he created to demonize and literally destroy the name of Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania. Dan and his left-leaning fans came up with this mean-spirited, grotesque “definition” after Savage was offended by something Santorum had said. It is telling that Savage decided the best way to punish Santorum was to associate his name with a disgusting by-product of homosexual sodomy. Despite his hateful stunts and anti-Christian rhetoric–including “flu terrorism” against GOP presidential contender Gary Bauer and an “Impeach the Mother-[F–k-r] Already (ITMFA)” campaign against President Trump, most media, and apparently Democrat politicians like Sean Casten in Illinois, treat Savage like a cultural hero. See video showing Savage’s anti-Christian bigotry below, and the Breitbart story on Casten HERE.

    Also, FROT movement founder Bill Weintraub* has criticized Savage quite a bit. An example:

    http://man2manalliance.org/crw/frot/limitnewer.html#savage (*Linked site contains graphic content)

    So, I suggested to Savage, it might make more sense to remove penetration from the pinnacle of gay male sexual experience and give men other options instead — and, at the very least, specifically warn them against being anally receptive early in a relationship.

    He didn’t reply to my letter, and he has not to two more over the last two years.

    The reason he has not is not mysterious.

    Dan Savage, like Steve Goldstone, is an analist.

    He consistently supports the dominant culture of anal sex, and censors opposing points of view.

    Savage is also respected and influential, and is sometimes quoted in the nongay press, most recently in Seattle, where he lives, and where he’s become an advocate for “responsible promiscuity.”

    But not, so far as I can tell, for fidelity.

    He simply urges men to use condoms during promiscuous anal sex.

  263. Just in case anyone is still reading:

  264. Dissident says:
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    I doubt that the tide of sexual liberation will not envelop acceptance of mid to late teens having sex with non-peers (I mean adults well over eighteen).

    It’s also the case that these sexual relationships in the homosexual subculture are de rigueur and to them a rather normal part of their sexual awakenings – teens cruising the known gay pickup areas looking for sexual adventure with other boys and men.

    Particularly predatory and depraved about such inter-generational male homosexuality is that it not only almost always involves anal buggery, per se (which is bad enough), but, specifically, that it is almost always the boy who takes the receptive role in the act. For the plain fact is that it is overwhelmingly and in some cases exclusively upon the receptive partner that nearly all of the distinct negatives inherent to this gruesome act– inordinate risks of infection and physical damage; pain and discomfort; unhealthy amount of preparation and preoccupation with bowel functioning; social and psychological disadvantages– fall.

    But imagine the following hypothetical case, rare as it may be, involving a boy aged 13-16 and an adult man, which differs radically in a number of key ways from the typical such case.

    [MORE]

    The boy strongly desires sexual intimacy with the man and makes this unambiguously clear to him. The man responds to the boy by attempting to dissuade him from such carnal intimacy altogether. Specifically, the man encourages the boy, first of all, to abstain from all sexual contact until he is older, and, at the very least, to not allow himself to be anally penetrated. The man does not stop there, however, but goes on to further strongly encourage the boy to explore whether he may yet be able to steer himself toward heterosexuality, explaining the advantages of doing so and emphasizing the likely fluidity of the boy’s sexuality given his young age. Finally, the man makes the case to the boy that if he does insist upon pursuing carnal intimacy with another male, such indulgence should at least exclude anal contact altogether in favor of alternatives such as FROT that are not only far safer than anal but also considerably less problematic in other ways as well.

    Despite such sincere efforts on the part of the man, however, the boy remains adamant about pursuing carnal intimacy with another male– if not this man, then someone else. Subsequently, the man and the boy engage in one or more forms of sexual acts with each other that completely exclude any anal-genital, anal-oral or even oral-genital contact.

    Should the law not give special consideration such a case? (Whether or not one thinks the man in my hypothetical was ultimately justified in making the choice that he did.)

  265. Dissident says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    As the US becomes a more difficult place to grow up in, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more cases of relationships between adults and mid-teens and maybe some push-back on legal sanctions. (Plenty of commenters on this blog think that female teachers going to jail for statutory rape is often wrong.)

    Surely, to treat such women any more leniently than men who take liberties with underage boys are treated would be decried as shamefully homophobic. I cannot imagine that is not at least a major reason for the tough and even draconian treatment of women who indulge their lust for not-yet-legal boys. Are there not today still many individuals among us who recall a time of considerably greater tolerance for such women? Does not the increased scrutiny and repression correlate closely with the increased acceptance of homosexuality?

    On the matter of sexual intimacy between adult women and adolescent boys, some thoughts and comments:

    1.) Might such relationships, in at least some cases, be considered a lesser evil to the same boys being sexually active with girls their own age (i.e., minors)?

    2.) In the case of boys who are less-than-confident about their sexuality, might it perhaps be worthwhile for a women who was so inclined to attempt a hands-on-approach toward helping to steer such boys toward heterosexuality? If a lack in self-confidence and self-worth, and anxiety about performing sexually with a woman are causative factors in at least some cases of homosexuality, would it not be plausible that the gentle, loving, patient, reassuring attentions of an attractive woman could help?

    These are questions that I would like to see discussed.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    , @Anonymous
  266. ziggurat says:
    @AnotherDad

    Just in case anyone did not get the reference, AnotherDad is quoting from the infamous albeit accurate speech nicknamed “Rivers of Blood” by the former British member of parliament Enoch Powell.

    It’s a pity that the British did not have a few more members of parliament of like mind back in 1968 when he made the speech.

    https://www.enochpowell.net/fr-79.html
    For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organize to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow-citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

    • Replies: @SFG
  267. SFG says:
    @ziggurat

    Infamous, because accurate.

    Thanks for pointing that out; a lot of newer readers may not be up to date on all the memes.

  268. @Dissident

    My impression is that the women who have the book thrown at them are victims of the demands of moralistic parents or cowardly administrators, not some too-clever-by-half response to gay predation.

    Anyway, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say its not only W-b relationships, but many people if honest wouldn’t really have a problem with men and 14-15 yo girls being together if the girls had already entered sexual maturity.

    As Steve has pointed out, a major reason for girls sports is parents trying to keep them childless (i.e., marriageable) until the socially-approved age for marriage (currently, post-university). With a bit of social disintegration and more shrinkage of the middle class, I can see parents thinking that established men are a good match for their younger daughters. Indeed, my last US girlfriend was 14 years my junior, and I think her parents were just happy she wasn’t dating a black guy.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Dissident
  269. TTSSYF says:
    @TTSSYF

    My point being, that just because a lot of polygamy in the Muslim world occurs with the wealthy and famous (or infamous) doesn’t mean it’s eugenic.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Rosie
  270. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Probably. Fictional robot emotions are hard to fathom.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime

  271. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    To the who can argue against fairness … well the feminists of course. No surprise there.

    The whole manosphere does it routinely. “Divorce rape” is a hoax.

    I would love to see a return to fault-based divorce, and I doubt men would much like the results. We already know men’s standard of living improves after divorce, while a woman’s declines. No fault divorce would change that.

    https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/men-v-women-who-does-better-in-a-divorce

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  272. Rosie says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Hey, Rosie, how about some stats? We sausage-festers love numbers, ya know?

    That is a fair question, and I don’t have any data. But then we’re talking about basketcase countries.

    I suppose it would be different in the West for a time, but I fear that eventually it would come to that. Massive unemployment resulting from automation could mean that creeps like Anon375 could finally be able to buy as many sex slaves, I mean wives, as they want and feel they deserve, with masses of decent young men left with nothing.

    • Replies: @imnobody00
    , @Anonymous
  273. Rosie says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Anyway, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say its not only W-b relationships, but many people if honest wouldn’t really have a problem with men and 14-15 yo girls being together if the girls had already entered sexual maturity.

    Sexual maturity and social/emotional maturity are not the same, and they don’t even really correlate all that well, with the latter not complete until up to ten years after the first.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  274. Rosie says:
    @L Woods

    Sorry, Woods. Our 14 year old daughters are not for sale, and even if they were, we wouldn’t do business with the likes of you anyway.

    (We need to have a fundraiser to get this creep a sexbot before he hurts someone.)

  275. @Rosie

    Disclaimer: I spent a year with men of polygamous countries in UN mission.

    This is why women should not be allowed in an intellectual debate. You are not able to reason without emoting.

    You come here, insulting and demeaning people (ignoramus, sausage-fest), faking a knowledge you don’t have, defending a bunch of BS (that relatively poor men can have several wives in polygamous countries). Then you are asked for data and you have none. It is only “because I say so”.

    Go back to your circle of girlfriends so you can tell each other how bright and right you are. Leave intellectual discussions to grown-up people.

    Edit: The comment about “my daughters are not for sale” proves my point. It is not about you, honey. Learn to engage in an intellectual discussion without giving free reign to your emotions

  276. Dissident says:
    @L Woods

    The statement of Rosie’s that you replied-to:

    Sexual maturity and social/emotional maturity are not the same, and they don’t even really correlate all that well, with the latter not complete until up to ten years after the first.

    Do you dispute any of that?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @L Woods
  277. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @TTSSYF

    “Eugenic” in this context just means what someone does and does not like. It’s arbitrary and subjective.

    That’s not what we’re discussing here. Rosie’s original claim was that polygamy is bad because poor losers end up with many wives and as a result those wives don’t get enough money and “nest eggs”. The reality is the opposite: the minority of wealthy men in a polygamous society monopolize the women.

  278. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    You’re the one who wants a polygynous society, remember?

    You’ve said many times that the monogamous social relations that prevailed in the 1950s were sexist and unacceptable.

    The post-60s feminist standards you support do not promote a monogamous society. They promote at the very least a mildly polygynous one.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  279. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Women initiate 70% of divorces and are usually awarded custody of children. They’re also awarded 50% of their husband’s property.

    The article says that women’s standard of living declines relative to men because they tend to be awarded custody of children, and because if they had never had kids in the first place, they would make more money, and because of sexism, women tend to earn less than men. It’s a bogus claim based on egalitarian feminist dogma, and it ignores the fact that men are typically denied custody which they seek.

  280. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    You’re the one who wants a polygynous society, remember?

    Shut up, you lying sack of shit.

    All you do us badger me by repeating the same crap I’ve already refuted over and over again, like this:

    They’re also awarded 50% of their husband’s property.

    ou’re a sophist worm with no integrity whatsoever. Now GFY.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  281. Rosie says:
    @TTSSYF

    Avoid engaging with Anon375. He is almost certainly a paid troll. He pretends below not to understand that “wealthy” is a relative concept. You know that saying, “in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” It’s the same with wealth: “In the land of the piss poor, the merely dirt poor man is wealthy.

    Just look at these Iranian women living high on the hog in their polygamous “marriages.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  282. Rosie says:
    @Dissident

    Do you dispute any of that?

    Woods is a deranged, sadistic individual who thinks women should be treated like chattel.

    There are standards even at Unz. Racial slurs and advocacy of enslavement of groups are not tolerated. But when it comes to women, nothing is beyond the pale.

  283. Dissident says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Thank you for replying. Kindly see below for a detailed response.

    Anyway, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say its not only W-b relationships, but many people if honest wouldn’t really have a problem with men and 14-15 yo girls being together if the girls had already entered sexual maturity.

    1.) Rosie’s statement that sexual maturity =/= social/emotional maturity is absolutely correct and highly germane here.

    2.) I do not believe that most people, at least in the U.S., would be comfortable with the idea of a 15-year-old girl being sexually pursued by an adult man any older than say, 21, at most. I, for one, find it, as a rule at least, unsavory and predatory.

    3.) That said, the distinction between mere erotic attraction and acting-upon such attraction is a critical one that is germane here. John Derbyshire was sanctimoniously attacked for courageously arguing that it is perfectly natural for an adult male to find a post-pubescent adolescent female sexually attractive.

    4.) The question of sexual relations between a woman and an adolescent boy is fundamentally and inherently different than both that of such relations between a man and an adolescent girl, as well as that of a man and an adolescent boy. There are critical physical, psychological and social differences between each of the three respective pairings. These differences generally favor the W-b variety, making it, as a rule, the least problematic of the three.

    5.) That said, W-b is not without concerns of its own. Between the lunacy of categorically celebrating (outside of strict fantasy) women who cavort with adolescent boys and the lunacy of categorically condemning any and all such instances of carnal indulgence, lies a span of reasonable ground.

    My impression is that the women who have the book thrown at them are victims of the demands of moralistic parents or cowardly administrators,

    Do you agree that there appears to be less tolerance of women who take liberties with adolescent boys today than there was in the past? If yes, the salient question is, what accounts for the change? Are parents more moralistic and “administrators”* more cowardly? If yes, then why?

    (*Presumably, you meant school administrators. Perhaps you meant other authority figures as well?)

    not some too-clever-by-half response to gay predation.

    Do you honestly think, for even a minute, that if women were to be treated more leniently for taking liberties with underage boys than men are for the same, that the usual suspects would not raise hell?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  284. L Woods says:
    @Dissident

    Arguably, women are never “emotionally mature.” Case in point right here.

  285. @Dissident

    With regard to Rosie’s comment, three points:

    First, I ‘m not addressing whether, tomorrow, it really is okay for a 30-year-old to date a 15-year-old. Steve asked about the frontier in the sexual liberation/libertine-ization of society. I am positing that in some future people may be okay with a lower age of consent. This assumes some stresses on the social fabric and earlier age of sexual maturity.

    Second, the age of consent is not based on the age of fully developed adult personality. This is demonstrated by Rosie’s observation that psychological maturity often doesn’t arrive until into the 20s, long after the (current legal) age of consent.

    Third, related to the second point, the discussion of age of consent often contains assumptions about what a sexual relationship should be that are not necessarily universal. You call a 25 yo man and a 15 yo girl predatory because you assume we are aiming for romantic relationships in which people meet on more or less equal terms. (In this case, you see the man knowing the emotional imbalance and ignoring it for sex.) I don’t think this has been the norm throughout all of history. Just as I reject gay marriage because marriage should not be a legal recognition of love, I reject the idea that the only legitimate relationships are equalitarian romantic pairings.

    In our current social structure, it is very difficult to see your 25-15 pairing as anything other than abnormal. We have clearly delineating life stages–such as high school, college, leaving home–which both create and create the appearance of substantial differences between all 25 yo and all 15 yo. I think that in a differently structured society, things might appear different. And this is not all theoretical. I think we don’t know how AI and robotics might change society in the future, perhaps forcing us to adopt a UBI and changing our attitudes about education.

    As for differences between how W-b relationships are treated now vs the past, I can’t say. In my milieu (upper/middle-middle class), it wouldn’t have been accepted in the past, and I didn’t know of any guys in high school who had affairs with older women. But in general, things were dealt with more discreetly and there was more general acceptance of human folly.

    If I were a father today and discovered via smartphone snooping that, for example, my 15yo son was bonking his 40yo drama teacher, I certainly wouldn’t pursue a line of action that got her thrown in jail. The parents who go ballistic now and involve the authorities have what on their minds? I can only guess. I certainly don’t think they are thinking about gay predation. And a double-standard upheld by the legal system would not apply to gays only but to men straight and gay. As there is a general pattern of favoring women over men, I think this could stand. I see the overreaction to W-b relationships more in the vein of protect the children mania. As for administrators, these are the same ones throwing kids out of school for “child porn” when they have nudes of themselves on their phones. Crazy or cowardly. Take your pick.

    • Replies: @Dissident
  286. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    You’ve argued many times before that the monogamous social relations that prevailed in 1950s America were sexist and unacceptable. Without such relations, you’re not going to have a monogamous society. Whether polygamy is formally instituted or not, you’re going to end up with a polygynous society.

  287. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Yes, “wealth” is a relative concept. Henry VIII was not less wealthy than a homeless guy today just because the latter has a cell phone and the former didn’t.

    Those Iranian women are going to be married to a man who is relatively wealthy in that particular society. Their husband is generally going to be a lot better off than the poor losers, who aren’t going to be able to afford one wife, let alone multiple. Why can’t you appreciate this simple fact?

  288. Dissident says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Thank you for following-up with that detailed reply. I appreciate it.

  289. Anonymous[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dissident

    Imprisoning women for being sluts is something those uptight Victorians used to do. It’s yet another example of how modern Leftism is just old time Puritanism with a new lick of paint.

  290. Kuk says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Finally, a sensible comment, Polygamy is only opposes by the “incel right” and feminists. It would be a good antidote to feminist outgrowths and would demand the proliferation of good genes.

  291. Twippo says:
    @dfordoom

    A high % of TERFs are lesbians. They are especially vehement against the “female penis” concept because many lesbians were sexually abused by men during childhood. (These are predictably the same feminists who oppose pornography and sex work.)

    It’s an interesting phenomenon that girls who are sexually molested by men often grow up to be lesbian, while boys who molested by men grow up to be attracted to other males.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS