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.

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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“.)

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.

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.

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

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

What’s Next?

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

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.

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

Take my wives, please.

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

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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”?

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

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

“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.

Polygamists who marry their daughters?

What’s Next?

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

We already had a Warren administration, according to my Dad. It was the damnable Earl Warren Supreme Court.

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

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.

It seems that the left also supports cannibalism as well.

Not to mention incest an pedophilia.

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.

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

“ 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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.”

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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…)

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.

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

“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.)

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.

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.

We’ve always known what’s next

Our kids

Always been about this

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.

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.

Since when are they made to logically defend anything?

>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

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.

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.

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

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

SCIENCE!

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.

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?

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

>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.

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.

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

Nah, I think that’s a dead end.

A robot with a penis? When is the bris?

Say “hello” to transhumanism.

It’s not the Left. It’s Mutants.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

They think we’re weird for getting boys circumcised.

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

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

What could go wrong?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

You have obviously never heard of PETA.

At Last! Denmark Bans Bestiality

Goat rape prompts PETA India appeal to ensure bestiality still crime under Sec 377

PETA bugged over bestiality in the military

“…my relations with my wife declined… Even closing my eyes and pretending she was a horse didn’t work after a while.”

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?

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

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

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

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.

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”?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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]

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.

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.)

For childrearing, naturally.

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.

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.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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?”

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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

Polygyny is eugenic

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

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

Of course, the Left is pro-Homo…..

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.

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

Dude, QUIT GOING TO FURRY SITES.

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.

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.

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.

https://twitter.com/Lagud2/status/1169212730773069825

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?

… 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.

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?

…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.)

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.

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.

…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.

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

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

Suspect this would be eugenic, all things considered.

I believe your post just described dysgenics.

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.

White liberals are more into polyamory.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

struck me as really sad

It’s not just you.

Frigid women would finally get some respect.

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.

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. 😉

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Hey, cannibalism is just another word for recycling!

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

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

As it also is with open borders.

Jack, that was an awful thing to say.

[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?

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.)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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……

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.

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?

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.

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.

consanguinity laws will be next

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.

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

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

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

You must be new here

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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

So true!

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.

Single, but most assuredly not celibate.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

You’re just mouthing platitudes.