How did societies in history ban practices which had no victims?Like banning Polygamy, who is being protected?
Effectively in core of nation, slowly with changing culture at large. In case of polygamy, the Nordics for example still practiced concubinage centuries after converting to Christianity and it just slowly eroded, but persisted at least until the 13th century.
>>18110914Polygamy is deliterious when it means not every male can be paired with a female.In the bronze age, often men killed each other at such high rates that there simply were much less men than women. In these societies, men had 1-3 wives on average (no, not all men can have 10 wives or something).Polygamy in 50:50 male:female societies leads to hell on earth like MENA.The FLDS which are pictured, OP, are breeding themselves out of existence because funneling females to only a few males means that incest and pedophilia become the norm (think for a second about the dynamics of male:female pairings... they have to go younger and younger and closer and closer in relation so other males can't capture them)
Fundamentalist Mormon sects routinely expel young men using flimsy pretexts to limit competition for spouses. The young women get married off based on the whims of the "prophet", either to the prophet himself or one of his cronies.
>How did societies in history ban practices which had no victims?Like banning Polygamy, who is being protected?
>>18110970They do this only really for problem cases, what they usually do is much more efficient than that. For the majority they just conscript them into surprisingly large scale construction companies that are basically slave labour operations. If you live in the USA it’s very likely you live within walking distance of something built in the last several decades by fundamentalist Mormons. What you actually see is this bizarre system where women get married ASAP but men outside the elite only get married in middle age. Because their youth is spent drinking the kool aid and building strip malls in Iowa.This is how they make their weird communities economically viable, all businesses are owned by the church and the entire labour force is conscripted into them for subsistence wages. They’re particularly interested in construction and engineering because it’s how they build their ever-expanding towns (which their sky high birth rates need) and how they can just abandon one and start a new one in a different state on a regular basis. Because they’ve got an entire class of cuckolded helots that do it for free in the hopes that through obedience one day they can have a wife and join the celestial kingdom and all the rest.
>>18111020>Like banning Polygamy, who is being protected?The average male.
>>18110914Polygamy is bad for society, since it leads to inbreeding and lower mental health for the children of those families.
>>18111136Why does having multiple spouses lead to more inbreeding?
>>18110914>>>18110970>>18111029polygamy is rare nowadays and often the wives were just some floosy who converted to mormonism to "marry" her sugar daddy, the construction companies are for mormon boys who turn out retarded, a retarded girl can find a husband easily, a retarded boy not so much
>>18111147find a spouse, rather
>>18111140Higher concentration of children by a smaller percentage of men. You can do the math.
>>18111140Because in a closed society, one with limited immigration or gene flow, people will eventually have to mate with close relatives sooner rather than later. In 50-50 monogamy societies, this occurs way slower and you can offset the recessive gene traits by introducing new genes. Medieval villages would marry people from other towns for such reasons to avoid inbreeding, and cement mutual agreements.Consider 8 unrelated people.Imagine male A has wives 1, 2, and 3. Their kids are A1, A2, A3, B4.Same with male B. Kids are B1, B2, B3. B4.You started with 8 unrelated individuals and now the next gen, 50% are related. So it narrows the gene pool. Given enough generations, the only suitable marriage candidates are relatives, and closer and closer relatives at that.In monogamy with 8 peopleYou get 4 unrelated pairs, so only 25% are related. So a wider selection. Also every male can theoretically get a spouse. In a polygamy society, what do you do with these excess males? They either leave, which weakens the literal manpower of the society, or they revolt, which weakens the society.The fact you even ask this shows how room temp your IQ is.
>>18111180But what if the two males are super good looking giga chads? Won't that make the society better?
>>18111180But it's not a random selection.If Genghis Khan has a million kids that gives more people a direct connection to the Mongol Khanate, and it's very unlikely any of his children will also have a million kids so the risk of inbreeding is irrelevant
>>18111215Dumb take, since the topic is relation to civilized society with established norms and systems - not one-off steppe horsemen raping and pillaging their way across Eurasia. Literally talking about society.Also Genghis Khan didn't really practice polygamy, as in he took a million women as wives and had to support them. Even in East Asia/China, concubines were limited by social rank and men were expected to provide for their wife/concubines. Failure to do so meant social mockery. Because concubines had inferior social rank, only the wealthiest and upper elites had concubines of any meaningful rank. Gentry class concubines tended to be literal bang-maids.
>>18111215Polygamists are not usually fucking Genghis Khan, you fucking retard.
>>18111199Hapsburg jaw might look good to some people I guess.
>>18111258Who are the average Polygamists we see in the old testament?
>>18111264People with 1-3 wives on average. Adam: 1 wifeNoah: 1 wifeAbraham: 1 wifeJacob: 2 wives (note: his wives giving their maidens "to wife (verb)" is THEIR idea and doing and is not actually marriage)Moses: 1 wifeThen you have KINGS who have have 20 wives they fuck, MAX. Fucking retard.>err umm uhh but dey had hundreds of wivesyeah man, they were definitely fucking all of them, totally. Michal we get a little vignette to explain how David never fucked her at all.
>>18110914Polygamy has the potential to create a large underclass of poor unmarriageable men, which undermines social stability.
>>18110914If anyone is interested, I found this interview with an ex-FLDS member to be really interesting.https://youtu.be/T--3_yFFGLcI know the woman interviewing him is a bit controversial, but even if you dislike her give this a watch. She mostly just stays back and lets the guy tell his story.
>>18111136>n, slowly with changing culture at large.>In case of polygamy, the Nordics for example still practiced concubinage centuries after converting to Christianity and it just slowly eroded, but persisted at least until the 13th>>18110914no. the reason why polygmy was largely less popular throughout history is that it muddies the bloodline. having (relatively) clear ideas of heritability and social bonds is kind of a necessity in a world of finite resources and social order. Who inherits what in a polycule of 20 people and their 60 children?This is why harems were much more popular, with a central powerful figure and thier various wives/loverboys. Then you have a decent idea of at least who half of the parentage is. Single marriage is even more common because its even more secure in terms of relationships.
>>18110961The current marriage system is deleterious. Children get raised by stepdads or no dad at all.
>>18111359>either/or mentalityfuck off. dumb fucking retard.The thing is, is that me and the boys would just beat anyone to death that tried to hoard women. MENA and Indians (and Mormons) seem so feckless and low T they just LET dudes control the pussy.
>>18111380>inb4 erm men are already hoarding womendating apps have no homologue in human history.they arent marrying women and they arent having children with them. society simply needs to die. that's the end of it.
Who is the victim of Apostasy?
>>18111359>>18111380We often talk about the downsides of single parent households, we rarely talk about the benefits of 3 or 4 parent households
>>18111320TL;DR pls
>>18111887Just watch at 2x speed zoomie.
>>18111380Divorce is more deleterious than polygamy. But you and your boys just chase some divorced crotch with children you never really love and dgaf about that eh crab man?
>>18111411Well. I suppose with more than one mother taking care of children while seeking extra income isnt an issue. Homeschooling becomes much easier. Make sure to bag a good teacher. The benefits could be quite marked to the individual family. I bet Divorce would drop as well. The women wouldn't want to lose to the other women. Which brings me back to the old realization that inheritance is good for families.
>>18111404All the innocent believers who might be tempted to also turn apostate if the don't see apostates get murdered, obviously.
>>18111305>Polygamy has the potential to create a large underclass of poor unmarriageable menThose exist regardless though no matter what in about the same percentages. The idea that every person can be "marriage material" is a modern day myth.
>>18110928concubinage is when a woman lives with a man that she is not married to and has a sexual relationship with him. Nordic people still practice concubinage, in fact it is the norm since most children in northern Europe are literal bastards
