~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
bookman117
[–]JimmyTheIntern 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
By only focusing on polygamous marriage, this article completely fails to notice that the decline of monogamy and the rise of a large bachelor underclass is more likely to be the true cause of these social woes, rather than an effect of polygamy itself.
Whatever gives you large populations of demotivated and desperate men will lead to these conditions. In the societies and times mentioned, polygamous marriage of many women married to one man was the cause of other men taking desperate action or dropping out of society. Today, it is the influence of feminism on a culture that no longer openly shames women for promiscuous behavior, and often celebrates it. When all the girls are free to chase after the top 20% of men for the better part of their youth, the effect is the same; frightening numbers of their male peers are going to figure out what's happening and either enter the game of pass-the-slut or choose not to play at all.
But no, yeah, definitely bring zero introspection or cultural awareness to the issue. Box these cultures up, label them different, and somehow pretend that this same exact thing isn't happening to our society at large, without all the pesky trappings of marriage and family.
[–][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, a lot of chinese couples wanted a boy for cultural reasons, and would abort girl fetuses. However, by the time they're adult men, technology should be able to offer good alternatives to sexual partners in meatspace. I imagine there'd be a trend like the herbivores of Japan.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
herbivores of Japan
What?
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Wikipedia link, basically men who aren't interested in women any more. Japan is dealing with some serious shit, people dropping out of society entirely. So, I guess if you're an alpha and you go to Japan, there should be tons of women who want a masculine male.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Woohoo, geisha hunting time.
But seriously, interesting.
[–]veggie_girl 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And there is a tumultuous number of these men that become ladyboys. Or maybe I'm thinking of Thailand. Anyhow, I think there is a link between a shortage of women and an increase in transvestites in those countries.
[–]W-Z-R 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah but after the initial problems in China, they'll probably end up with a generation of people descended from astute, hyper-competitive, and successful men.
[–]yoursisterlovedick 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Take a look at a country like Greenland. Not only did it go from hunter-gathers to an industrial modern society in a mater of generations, there's also more men than women, because the women move to Denmark, marry Danish men, and male Danish fishers move to Greenland. It has the highest suicide rate in the world, 0.1% of the population kill themselves each year, mostly young men, they drink a lot, incest and rape is widespread and bar fights happen all the time.
Greenland isn't poor, they have a GNP like the average western European country, though Denmark do pay half of their public expenses. They are nice and polite people, at least that's my experience, and they have traditions for dealing with conflicts in a non-violent way (they have games and something similar to rap battles to settle it). It just turned to shit when they modernized too quickly and got a surplus of men.
(and on a parenthetic note, the girls can be quite cute, like this, this and this. 1/6 of people in Greenland are mixed, and as a colonial power, Danish men have been fucking them for generations, which somehow outbred that Eskimo look and made the girls prettier).
[–]Clauderoughly 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link
Oh look, more feminists propaganda
Poly is BAD because it gives men too much power !
Women juggling multiple cocks ? A OK !
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nah man, this is basic red pill: feministing and divorce law results in a drive to alpha fucks, beta bucks causing the same class of problems as polygamy. That is, there are a bunch of low status males out there who can barely get laid, if at all, meaning that they will be more likely to cause trouble. In this sense, it is bad for society and the crux of the article is that this is why societies evolved away from polygamy.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You correctly point out the feminine imperative rearing its ugly head.
I disagree with the author's assertion that polygny is bad for women. On balance it works out in thier favor. Sharing the resources of a wealthy man is often better than all of the resources of a poor one. And even for those women who don't share, they are able to move up the pecking order and get a better mate because the rich man reduced her competition. There are some cons, but on balance there is benefit.
However, polygyny is bad for societies as a whole because it leads to vast numbers of sexually frustrated men, who then often resort to criminality.
[–]veggie_girl 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link
Polygamy is good for alphas and good for women.
Who it is bad for is beta men.
The 1-partner marriage was instituted 100's of years ago because leaders at the time realized that 80% of the population of men is always going to be beta, and these betas want to get laid just as much as the alphas do.
So the best way to get these betas motivated to work hard and not revolt, was to create an institution that allowed for them to have guaranteed access to sex; The institution of marriage offered this. It meant that alphas who already had a woman were unavailable, so women typically had to find the best beta that they could. That is, until society gave women too much political power and they destroyed marriage.
You have to remember that women don't give a fuck about beta males. Most women are also too short-sighted to think about the implications of what happens when you end up with 80% of the male population unhappy, unmotivated, and pissed off because they can't get a woman.
And what's worse, with the current state of things - even the women who "get it" and understand this, these enlightened women are not going to be willing to "take one for the team" and marry a beta because it's a sour deal. It would be different if all women were with the marriage program, but they aren't.
Feminism is naturally promoting polygamy while expecting beta men to continue to be motivated and work hard for them. Then, feminism tries to say that it is "against" polygamy but if that is the case women wouldn't ever sleep with a married man or let themselves become part of an alpha's harem. It's hypocritical, and it's extremely short sighted. It's only a matter of time until the beta 80% of the male population revolts or allows civilization to collapse simply because they aren't motivated to work. That is, if feminism is allowed to control civilization.
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I would argue that beta males wont revolt unless there is an alpha leading them. Betas on their own wont revolt, they'll retreat (like the problem in Japan).
I would argue that humans as a species have had a need for beta males. If we as a species didnt need them then evolution would have taken care of the beta male problem long ago. Being a beta male is not in and of itself likely a bad thing, it's just that in the current socio-economic climate that being a beta male makes you an easy (and prime) victim for the feminist agenda. Being Beta makes you take care of other guys kids, being beta makes you take all her stupid whiny cuntiness, being beta means you dont want to start divorce proceedings because you'll lose half of everything (but they'll lose all their self-respect and self-esteem not doing it).
Now the question is is the 80% beta males number from 'now'... How does that translate to 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago? I'm guessing that the number of alpha males was higher so the distribution was probably more like 50/50... Feminism has conditioned some people who would have been alpha in the past into beta bluepill men.
The joke in feminist circles is that women are 2 bad sexual relationships away from becoming lesbians... I'd argue that most beta males are probably 2 bad sexual relationships away from unleashing their inner alpha.
[–]veggie_girl 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Completely agree!
I said this in another comment as well:
All they need is a handful of Alphas to lead them. Usually the alphas that lead them are ones who have been excluded from the power-group that is currently ruling.
[–]imjoey8 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
You really think beta males would revolt? "We're sick of you taking all the women!" "Shut up and get back to work!" "O- Okay.. So- sorry sir."
[–]veggie_girl 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
It has happened in the past. More recently than you might think.
[–]imjoey8 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
I suppose that makes sense. But going back to your original statement, what leader would possibly care about that? In modern times where we understand these types of things it's possible but in the past I feel like most leader thoughts on the subject probably consisted of "All the women are MINE, you want me to give them away? Hell naw!"
[–]random_reddit_accoun 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
But going back to your original statement, what leader would possibly care about that?
Jesus, how about every fricking leader in history? A huge mass of disgruntled people who are excluded from society and are willing to do anything a leader, who gives them purpose, wants them to do? That's a wet dream to anyone aspiring to power.
This is pretty much how Hitler rose to power. Read up on the brown shirts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
[–]veggie_girl 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
I think I'd also like to add in that this is in particular why theredpill, rooshv, realsocialdynamics, r/seduction, and all other PUA type material is followed religiously by some men.
Think about RooshV as an example. Would you rather get a "real job" or become a leader of men that teaches them how to pick up women? He's looking after fellow men's sex lives and in return he doesn't have to work for someone else for a living. There are people in this very subreddit that would defend Roosh to the death if they had to, simply because Roosh helped them get laid.
A few hundred years ago we would refer to someone that didn't have to do manual labor for a living as a "lord" or "noble."
The lesson in this is simple. The best way to get men to follow you and like you, is to help them get laid. Period. (Check out the sub count on /r/malefashionadvice)
Edit:
This may be far reaching here. But I would dare to say this may be the reason that feminists have been able to achieve so much influence. Feminists are responsible for women being the sluttiest they have ever been in civilization. And beta men have been influenced by this, instilled with the pretense that these "empowered women" will be more likely to take the sexual lead and sleep with them. But it was all a sham. Women haven't changed, they still aren't attracted to betas. Now alphas just get more sex than ever with more women than ever. The whole "be a nice guy, be sincere, treat us like a princess, and we'll reward you" is bullshit and we never reward that kind of behavior.
Summary - Feminism is making itself appear as if it is offering sex to men, but it is only giving it to alphas. Betas are starting to realize that they have been lied to by a feminist culture.
Edit 2:
This post is not meant to be critical of anyone that helps you get laid or any online PUA expert/community/etc. It is simply for awareness. I recommend reading and following many sources of advice, especially from those who have already succeeded at what you are trying to accomplish. There are good things to learn from Roosh, good things to learn from RSD, good things to learn from theredpill, rationalmale, etc. Just be aware if you find yourself pledging allegiance to any one of these sources.
[–]SteelLake 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Are you demeaning men with real jobs? Because that is very sad. Strong work ethic is one of the qualities of a strong and productive society. Do you think Germany got to where it is by not working and lazing around? No I think you would become Greece if you did that.
[–]veggie_girl 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Are you demeaning men with real jobs?
No. The emphasis was meant to show that there is no such thing as a real job. There is only work. You will frequently hear people shame bloggers and say "they should get a 'real' TM job."
[–]sniperhiding 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Damn I love reading stuff you contribute. Can you name any books of history of civilizations/tribes that illustrate the whole red pill philosophy? I realize they won't use terminology like TRP, etc. Just curious where you got all this info from.
[–]veggie_girl 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
The entire Bible is extremely redpill. It has bluepill examples as well, and it shows the consequences of that kind of mindset and beta behavior.
I'm atheist so I ignore the whole religious element of it and replace the word "god" with "superstitious fear."
The Quran has some good in it, but holy shit does it read like a self-promoting book full of propaganda. The bible does too but not nearly as bad. Here's some good wisdom on women from it regardless:
"Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish" [2:223] "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them." [4:34] "marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]." [4:3] "Forbidden to you are married women, except those whom you own as slaves." [4:23] "Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]." [2:228
"Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish" [2:223]
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them." [4:34]
"marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]." [4:3]
"Forbidden to you are married women, except those whom you own as slaves." [4:23]
"Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]." [2:228
Women in succesful ancient cultures are also worth studying. Such as women in ancient Greece. And ancient Rome
There's stuff from the old philosophers I picked up in college:
Most of this was stuff I picked up over the years. A lot of it is lessons shared in "self-help" or "motivational" books. Books like:
These are just a few on my top-list, and I know I'm forgetting several. I read 5-6 books a month.
To quote a character from a great show:
"“My brother has his sword, King Robert has his warhammer and I have my mind...and a mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone if it is to keep its edge. That's why I read so much Jon Snow.” ― Tyrion Lannister - George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones"
For a good list check this: http://www.amazon.com/Management-Leadership-Business-Investing-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=2675
Just avoid anything written by a woman unless her biography shows that she actually started her own company and lead it to success. Most of the books I've read by women tend to talk about themselves far too much.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nicely written.
[–]veggie_girl 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Smart leaders who are capable of planning ahead and want 80% of the male population to work for them. The easiest way to motivate a supplicant man is to offer him sex if he plays by your rules.
[–]imjoey8 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
The idea makes sense but it still seems questionable. This would force to alpha males to give up their mates to betas, which would simply not happen. Also do you know of any specific civilizations or leaders that did this?
[–]veggie_girl 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Ghengis Khan did this. http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h11mon.htm
[–]imjoey8 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It appears he just made kidnapping and selling of women illegal, unless I missed something. Genghis Khan did kick ass though.
[–]veggie_girl 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
He essentially set up democracy for the Mongolian people and gave power to those who were loyal to him. By making kidnapping/selling women illegal (punishing alpha/betas for taking women away from another man) it gave the betas security with their women. His men were willing to, and did die for him.
Ghengis Khan took foreign women as spoils as war, but he did't hog them all. He also gave women to his men.
For a post-feminism culture example of a man doing this? That's going to be tricky to find. "Why" it's hard to find I think is a much more important question.
TL;DR - Feminism is making itself appear as if it is offering sex to men, but it is only giving it to alphas. Betas are starting to realize that they have been lied to by a feminist culture.
[–]hawtsauce-slc 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast is worth a listen if you're into audio. He discusses societal structure and its consequences in "The Death Throes of the Roman Republic," in his series on the Mongols/khans, and in "Thor's Angels "
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You can revolt by not working any harder than you need to satisfy your own wants. A one-bedroom apartment in a non-ghetto area, some video games, and a used car doesn't require 80 hour weeks to support. Keeping princess haaaapy in the burbs and her constant purchasing DOES.
[–]CUNTBERT_RAPINGTON 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're implying (falsely) that betas wouldn't engage is mass criminal and destabilizing behavior.
Never underestimate the power of many betas working together.
[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I disagree. Polygamy may have traditionally been beneficial for alphas but the laws we have in our society would make that a nightmare. If polygamy gets introduced into society, men would stop being so afraid of commitment because they can aren't limited to just one wife. So then the barrier of marriage is lifted up. They will marry as many as they can afford. Mix this in with the divorce rate and the laws that are significantly in the favor of women during divorce and you have disaster.
One divorce typically breaks a man. If he is then trying to support multiple wives after that divorce it is going to be financial hell for all of them. Which in my opinion will cause more of his wives to leave him because A)poverty isn't sexy to a woman and B)they don't want to be the last one out because their share will be much smaller.
Add to that a wedding ring will no longer be a deterrent to a gold digger. So if a law were to pass in our country allowing polygamy the gold diggers would come out of the wood work and attack every man with some money in the bank. Polygamy would be terrible in our current situation.
[–]veggie_girl -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
If polygamy gets introduced into society,
It already is, in a new marriage-less definition. 20% of men are getting 90% of the sex. You don't need to be married to have a harem of dedicated women.
With the current state of marriage the only men who would be interested in marrying MULTIPLE women would be bluepillers with sex fantasies. Any man that has any sense at all about the current legal state of marriage would still avoid it regardless of how many women the state allows him to marry especially with multiple women.
[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
polygamy by definition is marriage though and not just having girlfriends. And by being introduced I mean by passing laws to make multiple partner marriages legal.
[–]veggie_girl -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Meh, semantics. We agree otherwise I think.
There needs to be fewer beta men. I would've been pissed had I not swallowed the red pill. Now I see how polygamy could be a fantastic way to clean up the women of OkCupid.com. Like an adoption program. Otherwise they're just going to be miserable.
[–]Clauderoughly 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's only a matter of time until the beta 80% of the male population revolts
Hasn't happened so far, and I doubt it will happen any time soon.
Unless it happens in the next 50 years, I don't care.
or allows civilization to collapse simply because they aren't motivated to work.
You forgot that part of the quote.
And, I see both happening - in different parts of the world.
In western culture you see economic decline/collapse. In eastern culture you see revolution.
[–]anal_cyst 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
polygamy is great for alphas. bad for betas.
A different discussion, but I think polygamy laws are the next to go after gay marriage is settled. If the gay marriage argument is that it is arbitrarly defined as one man and one woman (should be any two), then I believe the next logical bound is: why only two people?
[–]FortunateBum 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As a handful of sociologists have pointed out, we do have a polygamous society. It's a form of polygamy that's a sort of serial-polygamy.
Wealthy men marry many many times, have many wives and children, and then are forced through child-support and alimony laws to support all of them.
So yes, we live in a de facto polygamous society and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
[–]VeryWideDoucheNozzle 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I personally wouldn't mind polygamy.
For starters, it would put an end to the tradcon bullshit ... "Everybody has somebody".
And its the natural order of things; A woman would rather be in the harem of a tier 1 man ... then share even a glare with a tier 2 or 3 man.
At least that way ... society can take one tiny step towards being 'honest'.
[–]1favours_of_the_moon 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think people should be free to do whatever they want.
But if you think you're gonna get divorced-raped by ONE wife, wait until you've got THREE.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]JimmyTheIntern 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]W-Z-R 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]yoursisterlovedick 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Clauderoughly 16 points17 points18 points (33 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 5 points6 points7 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]imjoey8 4 points5 points6 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 5 points6 points7 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]imjoey8 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]random_reddit_accoun 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]SteelLake 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sniperhiding 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]imjoey8 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]imjoey8 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hawtsauce-slc 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CUNTBERT_RAPINGTON 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Clauderoughly 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]veggie_girl 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anal_cyst 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FortunateBum 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]VeryWideDoucheNozzle 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]1favours_of_the_moon 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link