Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
54
Reputation
0
After the U.S Supreme Court declared gay marriage bans to be unconstitutional, some hot shot liberal wrote a piece arguing for legalized polygamy.

Obviously, as an incel, I have an interest in preventing this as I desire to one day have sexual relations with a woman.

This was his article:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ge-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VZjKS_lVhBc

I emailed him this:

[font=arial, sans-serif]One argument against polygamy which you neglect is that the monogamous arrangement allows for the somewhat equitable sharing of the good of female sexuality among males, thereby robbing many men of the incentive of engaging in fierce competition to secure mates, something which could destabilize society and lead to violence.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]The question that needs to be asked with regards to polygamy is: What are the consequences for society if polygamy becomes normalized and a substantial percentage of men cannot possibly find mates or start families? Other societies had solutions for this problem -- send those excess men to die off in war or banish them from the tribe (like the Mormons.) [/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]You don't really address the un-PC idea of monogamous marriage as a system being a form of sexual socialism that that allows for the equitable sharing of female erotic capital among males.[/font]

After I sent him this, some other dude (who is gay) replied to him in the same outlet, pretty much making my points:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ot-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#.VZjK6PlVhBc

On his blog, the guy arguing for legalized polygamy responds to the author of the above piece:

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/07/01/every-bad-argument-against-polygamy-debunked/

 ...but he neglects the central argument -- that polygamy means incel males which means an unstable society. So I egged him on (I titled the email "Stop being a pussy and respond to this argument"):

[font=arial, sans-serif]Your response to Jonathan Rauch side steps an argument he keeps making -- perhaps the key argument in his piece, which is that polygamy leads to hoarding of female fertility/erotic capital at the expense of lower status men who, as a consequence of the practice of polygamy, find themselves blocked from marriage, sex, becoming fathers, etc. [/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]You don't address this argument directly. Is it that you just don't give a shit about the men that would be blocked from becoming fathers/having sex/having female companionship etc because men with more money and status than them can attract multiple lifelong mates?[/font]
He added this update to his response to Jonathan Rauch:

[font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]If we have polygamy, what we’ll really have is individual men with lots of wives, and lots of sad horny angry dudes who can’t get laid of get married![/font]

[font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]1. We already have lots of sad horny angry dudes.

2. Government has no business trying to regulate the sexual or romantic “marketplace” so that men feel like they have an adequate number of partners to choose from. Society has no legitimate interest in ensuring that you feel like you have a good chance of getting laid.

3. Traditional marriage has traditionally invested men with superior power, too.

4. That polygamy often functions to have one man who dominates the household and lots of subservient wives is a function of patriarchy. It’s our duty to destroy patriarchy. If we undertake that effort, the benefits will accrue to traditional marriage, to polygamous marriage, and to the unmarried.

5. That the idea of one wife with many husbands is just assumed away is itself reflective of ingrained sexism.

6. The notion that polygamy will necessarily and perpetually default to one husband, many wives because of inequality in social and economic capital between men and women seems to me to be a matter of declaring defeat in the battle against sexism.

7. While a huge amount of work remains to be done, we’ve seen remarkable progress in closing the gap in social and economic capital between men and women in recent decades. There are a lot of relationships out there, right now, where the woman is the partner with more social capital, more education, a better income, and better prospects. It’s one of the most obvious changes in educated, elite society. Under those conditions, I can easily imagine one wife taking multiple husbands. And while we should never presume progress, I think we have a clear duty to spread that changing condition in the relative social and economic value of men and women throughout society. If we do, you’ll find this problem goes away.[/font]

Just lol. What SJW fantastical horseshit. I replied thus:

[font=arial, sans-serif][font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]1. We already have lots of sad horny angry dudes.[/font]
[font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]2. Government has no business trying to regulate the sexual or romantic “marketplace” so that men feel like they have an adequate number of partners to choose from. Society has no legitimate interest in ensuring that you feel like you have a good chance of getting laid.[/font]
[font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]3. Traditional marriage has traditionally invested men with superior power, too.[/font]
[font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]4. That polygamy often functions to have one man who dominates the household and lots of subservient wives is a function of patriarchy. It’s our duty to destroy patriarchy. If we undertake that effort, the benefits will accrue to traditional marriage, to polygamous marriage, and to the unmarried.[/font]
[font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]5. That the idea of one wife with many husbands is just assumed away is itself reflective of ingrained sexism.[/font]
[font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]6. The notion that polygamy will necessarily and perpetually default to one husband, many wives because of inequality in social and economic capital between men and women seems to me to be a matter of declaring defeat in the battle against sexism.[/font]
[font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]7. While a huge amount of work remains to be done, we’ve seen remarkable progress in closing the gap in social and economic capital between men and women in recent decades. There are a [/font][font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]lot [/font][font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, sans-serif]of relationships out there, right now, where the woman is the partner with more social capital, more education, a better income, and better prospects. It’s one of the most obvious changes in educated, elite society. Under those conditions, I can easily imagine one wife taking multiple husbands. And while we should never presume progress, I think we have a clear duty to spread that changing condition in the relative social and economic value of men and women throughout society. If we do, you’ll find this problem goes away.[/font][/font]




[font=arial, sans-serif]1. And that's unfortunate. Serial monogamy is a form of [size=small]polygyny  (as top tier men keep dating younger women.) The existence of this unfortunate fact doesn't mean that society should sanction zero-sum hoarding of female erotic capital by males fortunate in LMS (Looks, Money, and Status) all the more. [/font][/size]

[font=arial, sans-serif]2. Don't whittle down family formation and female companionship to "getting laid." The rise and maintenance of stable and advanced civilization could very well owe something to the equitable distribution of female erotic capital among males, which redirects their energies away from sexual competition and towards their families and societies. Society has considerable stake in encouraging and maintaining this.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]3. No beef with this. [/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]4. Patriarchy (or sex-roles based society) was the only workable solution for civilizations. If alternatives had been tried in the past, they were over-run by patriarchal systems, which made them unworkable failures.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]5. A powerful man can impregnate multiple women simultaneously and, perhaps, extend resources towards them...a woman can only be impregnated by one man...and why in the world would she want to be impregnated by a male she has to extend resources to? Men, having billions of sperm, have an incentive (or at the very least the urge) to mate with lots of partners, whereas women are programmed to be very choosy. This is why polygyny so easily fits with human nature and why it is far more extant in the anthropological record than the virtually non-existent "many men one wife" model (polyandry.)[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]6. No, it will default to that model because of inequality between MALES in LMS (Looks, Money, and Status), the nature of male sexuality (given its intensity and appreciation of novelty), and the nature of female sexuality (which is hypergamous.)[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]7. Saying "there are a lot" is vague. What is the percentage? Educated and successful women consistently demand men who outclass them in status or earning power. In fact, the rise of inequality in America is party due to women's consistent refusal to marry down compared to men. Regardless, polyandry is extremely rare compared to [size=small]polygyny. Given human nature and history, legal polygamy is most likely to mean polygyny, with many men shut out of the marriage market leading to concomitant societal volatility and, perhaps, decay.[/font][/size]
I hope he replies. This is him:



 

IcedEarth

Slayer
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
3,215
Reputation
0
I think the guy is trying to be a smartass and is trolling the supreme court to get attention and now you have trolled a troll, lmfao
 

asapanon

Cuck
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
83
Reputation
0
This would be awesome dude. You could have multiple wives. Can you imagine?
 

alien

Chad
Rotters
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
4,566
Reputation
490
Legalized polygamy would be the four horsemen of the apocalypse. DEAR GOD NO.

If you think we have a hypergamy problem now, just LOL at you buddy boy. Wait until you see legalized polygamy in action.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
3,909
Reputation
424
This would cause some serious social problems right now. I agree it is coming eventually but maybe not for 50 years. A lot could change as far as biotech / looksmaxxing by the time polygamy is fully as accepted as gays in 2015
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
54
Reputation
0
There was some speculation that he had a personal interest in promoting polyamory due to him looking like a slayer.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
156
Reputation
1
asapanon said:
This would be awesome dude. You could have multiple wives. Can you imagine?
Doesn't work like that. It's more like Chads are gonna marry a dozens of women while incels die as virgins. Women would rather settle for being part of a harem than date a guy who isn't attractive.
 

Franktank

Normie
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
1,785
Reputation
3
Multi marriage is a multi scam. Just lol wait till men go er en mass