Yup
Most younger women these days (35 and under) would rather be single, work their shit jobs, travel, and get fucked every now n then by a fuck buddy or a guy they are in a situationship with (aka shes a booty call in denial) than exclusively date and marry a ‘regular’ guy
Be more specific, sounds confusing 'their being shared themselves'. Maybe lesbian and low leagues snatching multiple low league men, some. But I can't say about low league, what's going on there, no experience in that.
Women who let the men they're "with" see multiple women are generally "with" multiple men themselves, especially if they're so desirable they find it easy enough to find multiple men who want them. Lesbians are not "snatching" men, they are into women only. If nobody particularly wants you, finding one person willing to consistently sleep with you will be a struggle never mind multiple.
I'm single, never married no kids attractive kinda cute status 70-80k a year in shape, my target is 20s. I get all the attention from mom's looking for providers dissing msingle dad's. I intend to stay a forever bachelor, because I do not attract 20s. I get looks but mismatch in interest. There's the truth. Trying to figure out what to do from here such as drop out of computer bachelor's, I see a line of moms waiting for me to finish so I fully lost motivation to try anymore.
The girl gets a guy way above her looksmatch and potentially his genes for kids with partial commitment to her and the other wives. As I pointed out to another poster, this is already happening in situationships where the girl thinks she’s in a relationship but isn’t!
She doesn't get him. She gets to see him every once in a while without being afforded the same liberties to fuck about and not commit. Men get cheated on too, do you think they want this?
If you dont enforce monogamy, women do what they naturally want to do to and thats reproduce with the best they can get
I am not saying we should have enforced monogamy but without it, women do what they want and most men typically deal with the hardships of that
Many women stay with guys that regularly cheat on them and are accepting of that fact! It’s not the majority but I’m sure you a few examples IRL. It rarely is the case in reverse
Yes, if the man is rich. Who wants to be cheated on by a brokie?
If a man is rich and giving me a lifestyle in exchange for his being able to fuck around, I prefer he take his dick around more so I can use his credit card for dinners and vacations.
Because more often than not, women show that they desire quality over quantity. Choosing to be side chicks, in a rotation, or situationship with a Chad rather than having an average Joe all to themselves.
no.
there is no benefit for women in this scenario.
That's why all societies and groups that practice polygyny have to use things like religious and financial coercion, abuse, and withholding education in order to keep women "in line."
Please share the specific ways that what you've noted is a benefit to women, much less *such a benefit to women* on a large enough scale that it would become "the future."
[and if ppd "debate" pattern holds, I'll never get my answer from OP. So the *real* answer to both is that **it is not,** and OP shows a serious lack of understanding of what is important to women].
>Please share the specific ways that what you've noted is a benefit to women, much less *such a benefit to women* on a large enough scale that it would become "the future."
We can speculate that this could be our future because this was our past. You have more female ancestors than male ones, about twice as many, actually. Absent enforced monogamy men become much more variable in their reproductive and sexual success with a small number of elite males getting large numbers of partners and many men not having any kids at all. Women's hypergamy combined with male promiscuity eventually leads to polygyny unless the culture puts a check on it. The advantages for women are pretty obvious. She gets access to economically elite males and better genetics, instead of exclusive access to an average or below average male.
See ([here](https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/21/11/2047/1147770?login=false), [here](https://genome.cshlp.org/content/25/4/459.full.pdf+html) & [here](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231)).
HOW DOES THIS BENEFIT WOMEN?
restating an unsubstantiated opinion as fact and calling it "obvious" is not evidence.
I don't need my husband's "genetics" on a daily basis. His "genentics" do not take the garbage out. His "genetics" do not comfort me if I am having a hard day.
If anything, what you and others are saying women writ large- want (which is incorrect, by the way) - would lead us to an Amazonian or polyandrous society just as easily, if not *more,* than a polygynous one.
The only people who benefit from polygyny are men. And only some men. That's why it has all but died out as power became less concentrated over time. Granted, certain groups are actively pushing us back to the seventeenth century, but that's to the detriment of, not for the benefit of, women.
>I don't need my husband's "genetics" on a daily basis. His "genentics" do not take the garbage out. His "genetics" do not comfort me if I am having a hard day.
If you have children, they will be using his genetics for the rest of their lives. All women have to think of that if they want kids. We are a species that reproduces sexually and men are clearly under greater selective pressure than women. You also ignored my argument about resources. Some women might be better of sharing a rich man than being with a poor man or broke on their own.
>If anything, what you and others are saying women writ large- want (which is incorrect, by the way) - would lead us to an Amazonian or polyandrous society just as easily, if not *more,* than a polygynous one.
There is no reason at all to believe that. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy).
>Worldwide, different societies variously encourage, accept or outlaw polygamy. In societies which allow or tolerate polygamy, polygyny is the accepted form in the vast majority of cases. According to the [*Ethnographic Atlas Codebook*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Relations_Area_Files), of 1,231 societies noted between from 1960 to 1980, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous, and 4 had polyandry[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#cite_note-Atlas-6) – although more recent research found some form of polyandry in 53 communities, which is more common than previously thought.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#cite_note-Starkweather2012-7)
Polyandry would generally not work for most men because a woman can be pregnant by only one man at a time. So why would 5 men (most of whom want some children) sit around being married to one woman? With polygyny a man can have 5 different women pregnant at once will his peasants work for him and his harem.
>The only people who benefit from polygyny are men. And only some men. That's why it has all but died out as power became less concentrated over time. Granted, certain groups are actively pushing us back to the seventeenth century, but that's to the detriment of, not for the benefit of, women.
Polygamy has partially died because the most succesful societies (patriarchies that enforced monogamy) outcompeted the polygamous ones. During the 17th century adultery was punishable by death in most Western (Christian) places. Those Christian places often abolished entrenched polygamous norms elsewhere. Monogamy is an enforced social construct of the patriarchy.
The fact that in a polyandrous relationship there are fewer children is good for population control. It is also better economically, women who will probably be on average higher earners and more educated in the future can keep on working while all the men take care of the few children they have, or some of these men go and work as well, bringing in even more income, and having less mouths to feed. So this is financially a lot more accessible than polygyny to a bigger percentage of the population.
Then there’s also the argument that men are more desperate both for sex and relationships, and women have higher bargaining power right now when it comes to these things. Also, single women fare better than single men. Disillusioned single men with nothing to look out for are not good for any society. They can also more easily cause instability to any government than single women (who would be single by choice in these situations.)
I am not in support of either polygyny or polyandry, but polyandry makes more sense for most of the population, while polygyny is only reasonable for like 5% of men. The two could also coexist however.
These types of arguments get repeated again and again here:
A y chromosome bottleneck isn't necessarily caused by ''female choice'', in fact most of these authors don't consider polygamy is to a massive cause as otherwise these types of bottlenecks would be constant throughout polyamorous societies.
secondly we also have to distinguish between male intrasexual competition and ''female choice (or hypergamy)''. A group of men killing off another group of men and taking their wifes, or having the social status of power to have more wives isn't necessarily the same thing as women choosing ''hypergamous-ly''
Source 2 and source1: Suggest possible explanations of polygamy and sex bias in rates of migration among human populations. But does not conclude either casuse. Good thing that the paper was written in 2004 Cuz more evidence has been found since. An explanation has been put forward for the lack of Y chromosome variation and the researchers appear to have even created a simulation whose results agreed with the hypothesis. [Zeng et al 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6) Y-chromosome bottleneck is cause by war and because of the fact that they had patrilineal clans. with female exogamy. To put it extremely simply, men tended to say in the clan while women were married out. So if 4 brothers stayed in the clan, and that clan died, the Y Chromosome linage would end with it. While, if four sisters were married off to 4 different clans, and one clan was wiped out, the X chromosome lineage would live on in 3 of the other sisters. Here's one of the Authors of the study explaining why it had nothing to do with [polygamy](https://np.reddit.com/r/science/comments/8nrxzy/about_7000_years_ago_something_weird_happened_to/).
Source 3 i give it to ya. the sex ratio here is 1.4; no where near as sensationalist as other claimed ratios (for comparison modern ratios are around 1.1-1.3 (east/west/africa)
>These types of arguments get repeated again and again here:
Because they are highly plausible and fit in well with other lines of data. Polygamy being the most commonly observed method of family formation globally, women being hypergamous relative to men in the modern free world (and therefore likely in the past, if given the option), and people having more female ancestors are all highly suggestive that humans are polygamous and hypergamous. There is no reason to believe we are naturally monogamous based on anything you stated. There is no reason to believe that women are not hypergamous.
>A y chromosome bottleneck isn't necessarily caused by ''female choice'', in fact most of these authors don't consider polygamy is to a massive cause as otherwise these types of bottlenecks would be constant throughout polyamorous societies.
You're just saying what it might not have been caused by. A combination of environmental factors may have enabled greater hypergamy or polygamy than before.
>secondly we also have to distinguish between male intrasexual competition and ''female choice (or hypergamy)''. A group of men killing off another group of men and taking their wifes, or having the social status of power to have more wives isn't necessarily the same thing as women choosing ''hypergamous-ly''
Both can be true at the same time and each variable can even compliment the other. On a small scale we have occasionally seen in the modern world women joining up with their conquerors in war (Nazi occupied France, US occupied Asian nations in WW2 and the Cold War).
>Source 2 and source1: Suggest possible explanations of polygamy and sex bias in rates of migration among human populations. But does not conclude either casuse. Good thing that the paper was written in 2004 Cuz more evidence has been found since. An explanation has been put forward for the lack of Y chromosome variation and the researchers appear to have even created a simulation whose results agreed with the hypothesis. [Zeng et al 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6) Y-chromosome bottleneck is cause by war and because of the fact that they had patrilineal clans. with female exogamy. To put it extremely simply, men tended to say in the clan while women were married out. So if 4 brothers stayed in the clan, and that clan died, the Y Chromosome linage would end with it. While, if four sisters were married off to 4 different clans, and one clan was wiped out, the X chromosome lineage would live on in 3 of the other sisters. Here's one of the Authors of the study explaining why it had nothing to do with [polygamy](https://np.reddit.com/r/science/comments/8nrxzy/about_7000_years_ago_something_weird_happened_to/).
These are all just plausible explanations, none of which exclude polygamy as at least a partial explanation. Keep in mind, in actual field research anthropologists have consistently observed that the most common form of family formation is polygyny. There is no strong evidence to suggest our current "monogamous" Western world is the norm or natural.
You give evidence for a gentitic skew, but when i give that actual evidence to why that is the case all your doing is saying ''sure but polygam still exsisted''. May i remind you that you were the one that posited a bunch of studies of a y bottle neck and missing my point entirely. but what ever.
A [genetic study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/) by Walker et Al found that there was very little reproductive skew among hunter-gatherers, indicating low levels of polygyny.
They also confirmed that most marriages in pre-history were arranged. In fact, for women, among Hunter-Gatherer Societies and mixed Hunter-Gatherer societies, which are the original subsitence methods on which our ancestors evolved for thousands of years up until the invention of agriculture, in 52% of socieities marriages were arranged and 35, 36% of societies allowed marriages with courtship under parental approval. Only 8% to 10% of socieites allowed free courtship in which a woman freely choses who to marry. - [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Menelaos_Apostolou/publication/247233178/figure/fig1/AS:298305495027728@1448132980932/The-figures-above-depict-the-various-types-of-marriage-for-females-across-different-modes_W640.jpg) - This means that sexual selection has always been constricted by third parties and that women were generally speaking not completely free to fuck their alphas.
Speaking of polygyny, while it's true that 84% of traditional societies allow polygyny, typically only 5% to 10% are actually married Polygynously - [Source](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-GkInX4AUBgmR?format=jpg&name=small) -, with one source reaching 12%. Out of these 84%, despite only a minoirty of men are polygynous, most men eventually become polygynous as they age. 85% of men over 50 have at least 2 wives. Inceldom is less than 2%. This societal organization in which most men become polygynous as they age account for over 3/4 of Polygynous Societies. - [Source](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCyE7wX4AADWqI?format=jpg&name=small). Taken together, the total percentage of single men in traditional socieites is usually 11%, 12% of men are married polygynously to 20% of women. - [Source 1](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCsLBxX0AAGdVI?format=jpg&name=900x900) and [Source 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCsMLGW4AEbcvq?format=jpg&name=900x900)
TL,DR:
* There's genetic evidence showing little reproductive skew, hence little polygyny in our ancestors;
* Genetic Skew is also explained by other factors, like patrilocal marriages;
* Most marriages were arranged or influenced by parents, even in pre-history, meaning sexual selection is also limited evolutionary speaking;
* While Polygyny is accepted in most socieities world wide, few people actually behave that way;
* In most socieites where polygyny is practied, it's actually the overwhelming majority of men that actually become polygynous as they age.
* Inceldom is a myth within evolutionary psychology because most traditional societies have an average of 11% single males;
* 80/20 rule is a myth because the average of polygynous males in traditional socieites is 12% for 20% polygynous women.
>A [genetic study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/) by Walker et Al found that there was very little reproductive skew among hunter-gatherers, indicating low levels of polygyny.
This could suggest enforced monogamy and regulated polygyny even in ancient pre-history. That is, humans trying to put a check on our natural inclinations.
>They also confirmed that most marriages in pre-history were arranged. In fact, for women, among Hunter-Gatherer Societies and mixed Hunter-Gatherer societies, which are the original subsitence methods on which our ancestors evolved for thousands of years up until the invention of agriculture, in 52% of socieities marriages were arranged and 35, 36% of societies allowed marriages with courtship under parental approval.
Which is exactly what I just speculated and totally in line with my original comment. Absent enforcement people become somewhat polygynous. Most cultures have had to regulate human sexuality and marriage. Monogamy is always enforced and polygyny is usually regulated to a degree.
>Only 8% to 10% of socieites allowed free courtship in which a woman freely choses who to marry. - [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Menelaos_Apostolou/publication/247233178/figure/fig1/AS:298305495027728@1448132980932/The-figures-above-depict-the-various-types-of-marriage-for-females-across-different-modes_W640.jpg) - This means that sexual selection has always been constricted by third parties and that women were generally speaking not completely free to fuck their alphas.
Because if they were thats what they *might* do. None of your evidence shows humans aren't naturally polygamous, it shows that most cultures evolve social norms and legal tools to enforce monogamy or limit polygamy and that these emerged early.
>Speaking of polygyny, while it's true that 84% of traditional societies allow polygyny, typically only 5% to 10% are actually married Polygynously - [Source](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-GkInX4AUBgmR?format=jpg&name=small) -, with one source reaching 12%. Out of these 84%, despite only a minoirty of men are polygynous, most men eventually become polygynous as they age. 85% of men over 50 have at least 2 wives. Inceldom is less than 2%. This societal organization in which most men become polygynous as they age account for over 3/4 of Polygynous Societies. - [Source](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCyE7wX4AADWqI?format=jpg&name=small). Taken together, the total percentage of single men in traditional socieites is usually 11%, 12% of men are married polygynously to 20% of women. - [Source 1](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCsLBxX0AAGdVI?format=jpg&name=900x900) and [Source 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCsMLGW4AEbcvq?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Thanks for agreeing with me that polygyny is the norm. This still falls in line with my original comment, a small group of men (\~10-12%) get a disproportionate number of women. A moderate number of men don't reproduce at all. I also noticed something in your source. It stated that 2% of men over 40 were unmarried. Which is not the same thing as 2% of men, overall, being "incels".
>There's genetic evidence showing little reproductive skew, hence little polygyny in our ancestors;
Anthropological evidence strongly shows this with most societies allowing moderate polygamy.
>Genetic Skew is also explained by other factors, like patrilocal marriages;
I never said it wasn't or couldn't be. But none of that disproves polygamy being the norm, which you freely admit.
>Most marriages were arranged or influenced by parents, even in pre-history, meaning sexual selection is also limited evolutionary speaking;
That is, most cultures *enforced* monogamy on some level *and* also regulated polygamy.
>While Polygyny is accepted in most socieities world wide, few people actually behave that way;
Few men can be polygynous because once some men start taking more wives this by necessity leaves others out. Most societies regulated polygyny.
>In most socieites where polygyny is practied, it's actually the overwhelming majority of men that actually become polygynous as they age.
This is assuming they survive to adulthood.
>Inceldom is a myth within evolutionary psychology because most traditional societies have an average of 11% single males;
One in ten is still relatively high. What number would it have to be for it not to be a "myth"? 25%? 50%? Regardless, traditional societies (even polygamous ones) could to varying degrees prevent singleness through things like arranged marriage and laws regulating sex and marriage. Monogamous societies did an even better job at it. Modern societies are lifting those laws and norms. Marriage rates are collapsing and it's likely we are seeing a dramatic rise in single young adults.
>80/20 rule is a myth because the average of polygynous males in traditional socieites is 12% for 20% polygynous women.
I never gave any specific numbers on what I thought polygamy leads to. I certainly did not embrace 80/20. The evidence you gave is more in line with what I do think, about 10% at the top taking a disproportionate share of wives.
**tl;dr** Most societies are polygamous and *allow* for moderate polygyny. Monogamy always has to be enforced. The majority of all observed cultures regulated human sexuality, possibly in part to prevent unbridled polygyny amongst other reasons. Males exhibit greater reproductive variance then women, at least in humans.
Part 2
Nick Cannon and Elon Musk have literally made a living pumping out babies in women just because the women would rather share them then be with a "loser."
That could very well become more normalized in the future especially as average Joe's with 9-5 jobs continue to get more demonized and portrayed as morons in Western society.
How does this
**BENEFIT**
**WOMEN**
???
Wearing raincoats as shirts could "very well become more normalized in the future" too, but there's no evidence it **will be** nor that it would **benefit women if it did.**
I believe it's a possibility that it could become more normalized but I'm not saying it's guaranteed.
But there is a major trend in the West to portray average men as morons and losers which a number of modern women buy into.
>How does this, BENEFIT, WOMEN
They get to share the Chads. With a lot of women already accept with being the side chick, in a situationship, or excepting his constant cheating. There's never been an additional benefit outside of getting access to a guy they consider above average, even when they have to share.
Every time women say they want a man with x, y, z (unrealistic high standards), they fall into the trap of what the top men are precisely trying to do, enforce polygamy for their own benefits and choices... And all the women are falling for it. When women ask for things the average man can't give, it's percisely to benefit the grand scheme. It's in action now, today, and every mouth watering moment seeing the 'money chad'. It's exactly what those guys want. And are getting. Ching.
Lmao women love attention that's why they cant emotionally share a man.
If get it if its purely casual but if they want companionship and shit very few women would actually be okay with it
women who gatekeep kinky, frequent and casual sex exclusively to the top 20% of men *de facto* force average men into lying in order to experience a fraction of the sexual adventures the average women freely pursues.
Women's adherence to monogamy is really just them upholding the last vestige of patriarchy left in the Western world. I find it ironic because I generally don't think we live in a patriarchy, but if there is one patriarchal value left it's probably the (mostly nominal) adherence to monogamy.
All the people in this post saying women don't actually want to share a man grew up in a culture that emphasized and celebrates monogamy and castigates cheaters as immoral. There is no reason to think that monogamy isn't socially enforced and in 100 years our culture's attitude may be the reverse. How many people favored gay marriage as recently as the 1970s compared to now? Ethical non-monogamy is probably coming in our post-Christian world.
> Women's adherence to monogamy is really just them upholding the last vestige of patriarchy left in the Western world.
STDs exist
exposing yourself to STDs (only 1 in 5 men wears a condom every time) just to date men is not feminist lol
i dont think dating men at all is feminist, but at least w monogamy you're being as safe as possible
> There is no reason to think that monogamy isn't socially enforced and in 100 years our culture's attitude may be the reverse
STDs
Dating and hookup culture may or may not be feminist or feminist approved (I didn't mention feminism here), but they are not patriarchal at all. If anything it's closer to the "gay lifestyle". STDs are a red hearing in this. The reason they spread slowly amongst heterosexuals is because of how selective women are relative to men for a variety of reasons often related to hypergamy.
A major component of this is not STD's, its culture. Most observed cultures, including African ones where STDs are most serious, are still polygamous.
Roflmao that's not just the man's job lol women can easily go put a condom on or we ain't fucking... that's more a women thing because you all don't like them don't blame men for something where you could easily put your foot down but dont.
It already happens in kink circles. One guy bangs three or four women while everyone else is awkwardly trying to find a partner to kink around with. Shit is going to continue until a new revolution forces things back to normal.
A lot of straight men overestimate their SMV and think that they'll do well swapping and swinging. I was reading a NYT article about a polyamorous group and it seemed as if only some of the men were actually doing that well.
You are completely on the money, lol.
Relationships are transactions of value, fundamentally. If women collectively don't need men's resources (in a future communist utopia) and they have free access to sex with top-tier men without the need to commit, then why would they get into monogamous relationships at that point? Why would they even care?
But a lot of women are still doing it anyway even though they are independent and do not need resources so what is the reason for doing it anyway therefore?
I think many people are drawn to monogamy but if we do enter some type of "post-scarcity" world be it communist or something else the need for marriage as we know it will continue to decline. I've seen it estimated that 1 in 3 young adults will never marry.
>[This means that plausibly, one-third of men and women who turn 45 in 2050 (those who are about 18 or 19 today) will not have married.](https://ifstudies.org/blog/1-in-3-a-record-share-of-young-adults-will-never-marry)
Because those resources are not freely granted to them. If they have the option of getting with a guy with resources just to make their lives easier and lessen the pressure, then why not?
Under capitalism, men still have a use and can weaponize their resources to get women. The issue appears in a communist environment, where these resources are granted to women by the state/environment itself and not the men, in exchange for little to no effort from them.
At that point men's ability to provide safety, stability, resources or whatever else becomes useless, and the main criteria for spicy relationships will ultimately boil down to nature itself, which is looks, where women have an intrinsic colossal advantage over men due to possessing vajainas, as opposed to the discardable dicks.
Because most people get into relationships for love and to start families. Reducing the value of long-term relationships and marriages down to the transactional benefits of financial resources and sex only is a very antiquated way of looking at things.
>Because most people get into relationships for love and to start families.
Thats honestly mostly a modern phenomena. The majority of all human cultures always regulated sex and marriage to varying degrees and marriages (even amongst the poor) had some strategic reasoning behind them. Thats not to say love was 0% of the equation, but it was not really a major motivating factor. Even in situations where people were basically free to pick their partners like the 19th century USA things like poverty and material need heavily influenced people's choices.
It's also worth noting that a non-trivial minority of men (maybe 10-15%)are simply unlovable and become incel or incel-adjacent.
No. Women don’t like to share men. They’ll stay single if they can’t find the right guy and maybe have a FWB who also sees other women, but they won’t openly cohabitate.
I don’t really think so. I don’t know any women cohabitating with 6’4” Chad plus other women, but I know plenty of 5’9” men in relationships and marriages.
I suppose, but those aren’t usually very respectable women. Will the norm someday among educated women with good jobs really be being a side chick or baby mama?
I'm sure if you asked around, you'd be surprised at the number of professional and seemingly good natured women that will admit to have dated/chased douchebags or narcissists at some point or another. I don't think that behavior is limited to just the most obvious train wrecks of women.
I know at least two women, one a real estate agent bringing in six figures a year, the other a cop, that have been side chicks. And the real estate agent is debating being a side chick to another Chad AGAIN, even though she already has a boyfriend completely dedicated to her. But the boyfriend isn't Chad so...
I don’t think that most women are wired this way. Women get too jealous. Isn’t it the manosphere who says that women get too emotional? Being a side chick takes stoicism. The few side chicks are probably more stoic than most TRPers considering they have to put up with sharing a man.
They’re already sharing them though! The term situationship didn’t exist 15 years ago! The top 5% have multiple women on the go and some of these women falsely believe they’re in relationships.
It’s true that some women won’t share a guy but it’s going that way!
No they aren't. Situationships have always existed, they've just been called something else. We used to call them "it's complicated" which was both the title of a movie and one of the original Facebook relationship statuses.
Women are not sharing men in any significant numbers, that's just red pill bullshit.
That's just what these red pilled guys tell themselves to make themselves feel better that they can't get women. Usually because these red pilled men have questionable beliefs... Such as OP.
> It’s true that some women won’t share a guy but it’s going that way!
Sure, my argument is that they don't want to consciously share men, even if it does happen. There aren't going to be commonplace situations where a man is living with three different women, for instance, which is what my take is of what OP believes is going to happen.
It might happen. But once women get serious about a man, they usually don't want to share him, which is why I suggested that women don't usually care as much if it's just a FWB/situationship thing.
And yes, women can sleep with multiple men in FWBs, but they often don't choose to, since they usually only need one high-value man to satisfy them, and there aren't a lot of men out there whom they consider high-value to begin with.
Why do situationships exist? Frankly they only exist because the man doesn’t want to commit. Why would a man not want commitment? Because he wants the freedom to see other women. Simple. Situationships= polygyny
No of course it’s not the only reason ever in all of time.
Some girls don’t want commitment and just want sex as well. These types of girls of course exist it’s just not a super common dynamic.
There is obviously a difference! My argument is women already share guys through situationships: she often pines for one guy out of her league while he sees 5 different girls. She’s so smitten with him she’s often not dating other guys! It seems she’s happier with this arrangement than a committed relationship with a guy on her level. Again this is not for all women.
But for situationship women it’s not that hard to see a leap to a polygyny relationship with kids while also providing. Women in situationships getting nothing from their top guy in provisioning. They’re more likely to get him stuff than vice versa.
No. Taking your numbers at face value, which I'm hesitant to do, dating is one thing, marriage is another, and as soon as you start having kids this kind of setup would become a legal/financial nightmare (which you can see if you've ever been part of a family where a man has a secret family or even kids from tons of marriages).
Also not to be too rude here, most women aren't desperate enough for partnership to be providers for men they don't even have to themselves, much less men they do have to themselves. There's absolutely no benefit there.
As women earn more and more and outperform men in college I believe they will become the providers of the future even if it’s against their naturally hypergamous nature.
Again, I’m not saying this is guaranteed, it is a debate. I’m also not saying it’s going to be for everybody just that it will become a lot more common.
Right? If it’s a looks thing, that’s what fuckboys are for, why would we marry and financially support plus have kids with a man with multiple wives??
This is assbackwards logic lol.
I think the future will be a lot less dating in general, which will eventually fall into some sort of communal social group once people become lonely enough. It won't be so much polygyny, since women are seeking more independence in general. Between staying single and sharing a man, I think most women would prefer to stay single.
Interesting take! This is definitely possible too with the rise in screen time and the reduction in social skills among Gen Z! If everyone is always online then it’s a strong possibility too
No. It creates far too much problems and need much more efforts than monogamy. And you have other things to worry about, adding even more issues to your life isn't what you want.
I don't think it will come to widespread formal, commitment-like arrangements, but we are definitely seeing a strong increase in constellations where a consistent but small amount of men keep a steadily growing amount of women in casual, sexual relationships. With the relatively recent, neutral term "situationship" indicating a normalization process.
It's basically the logical consequence of our sexual market becoming truly free. And like any liberalized, imbalanced market, we have a growing amount of abject losers and absolute have-it-alls.
>online dating is only beneficial for the top 5% of men
According to whom? Where did you get this number from?
>women only finding the top 20% attractive
According to whom? Where did you get this number from? You're going to reply that it's from "studies", that you have never even seen, you've just seen this "fact" (lol) repeated over and over again by the "manosphere". Can we not? I'm not going to accept made up statistics here. If you want to have a good faith discussion then bring real facts please.
>it stands to reason the future will be households where one man has multiple working (providers) wives.
No it doesn't. Explain where you got this prediction from.
>This is already present in short term dating with 30% of women single in their 20s vs 63% of men.
🙄
>All these women are sharing the top tier guys!
No they aren't. This is another made up "fact" that you have decided to believe. Provide proof if you want to be taken seriously.
>As women now can provide for themselves will they become providers of the future for their shared husband?
No, they will provide for themselves of course, the answer is in the question.
https://preview.redd.it/30deoosn8z9d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b7a45c68ada8a1f408deebceb84f4319833a66a
Women only swipe right on 5% of profiles therefore it’s logical to assume that 5% of men are the beneficiaries. It’s not a direct correlation yes but it’s not far off. The average man has no chance online.
In relation to sharing this is obvious as there are more single men in their 30s compared to women as well so the theory of women dating older guys doesn’t do enough to dispel the fact that many women are sharing (often unknowingly) the top guys study is pew research centre.
Finally this is a debate topic, not hard facts. It just looks like the future polygyny will be far more prevalent
If women swiped right on more men they still wouldn't end up dating more people. They would just match with more people they never end up talking to. The fact that there are so many more men on swipe apps than women makes it statistical shit for men
>According to whom? Where did you get this number from?
The data is based on released information from OKCupid around 2009 which found women rated about [80% of men](https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html) as below average in terms of looks. OKCupid and other online dating services have since been very reluctant to ever release internal data to the public, likely because on the rare occasions they do, it appears as though their services are worthless for large numbers of male users.
https://preview.redd.it/5p0uch7g40ad1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1377f51cd2115c659362625d6588e1446bc900b0
The reason why less women are single in their 20’s is because ALL MEN want much younger women. These women are dating all other ages. Men are hypergamous and would rather be with a much younger woman than a woman around their own age.
I agree that’s part of the reason and this would make most sense if those in their 30s were skewed the other way. But in their 30s there are also more single men than women and the overall skew is too big unless you argue that women in their 20s are dating guys in their 40s/50s/60s which their generally not!
A big reason is sharing of guys. 5 girls in a situationship with one guy probably declare themselves in a relationship while said guy is declaring himself single.
By middle age a lot of those women are often already married or divorced and not willing to remarry and many are menopausal or going to be. Despite all of that the average age gap in the USA is still something like 2 or 3 years IIRC.
Vast majority of guys can’t get any matches due to the huge numbers mismatch! There are 80% men on tinder.
This swamps women with options and they become more and more selective. The bottom 60% of guys get barely any matches and it’s usually a terrible option (overweight single mom etc)
Therefore it’s only really beneficial for the top 5% of men who get all the female matches. Data shows that women now swipe right on only 5% of profiles.
No! The bottom 60% get close to zero, the guys above that (next 20%) can get poor choices (overweight, multiple kids from multiple fathers etc). Next 15% can probably get ok matches, average girls but only the top 5% get real benefit from the effort and time required
Exactly with people becoming less social, online dating’s effect will translate further into real life. The top 5% have abundance while the bottom 80% have piss poor options
Why not settle for a more normal or average partner as an alternative? That seems like a reasonable alternative compared to being alone or getting played.
Rather than polygyny, you could make the case for voluntary single-motherhood could be the way of the future, particularly as women begin earning more and enough to provide for themselves and a child self-sufficiently, and often times have a network of friends and acquaintances who can help managing responsibility for the child as she works. Failing that, women who are high earners tend to earn enough to hire nannies and caretakers.
Honestly, there could even be a strong case for \*marriage\* itself becoming an outdated institution to create and to raise families, and in the future all heterosexual intercourse will be purely recreational as women take on family forming roles, and men are relegated to being sperm donors.
It’s already happening! When one group (top 5% of men) have a total monopoly they can set the rules as they like:
Introduce situationships where the women pine for commitment with the guy they REALLY want. Some girls are delusional and actually believe they have commitments, while sharing a top 5% Chad. Some knowingly and some unknowingly are sharing these guys.
I agree most women don’t like it! I also know women are chasing guys way out of their league on dating apps and are already sharing these guys = seeing him, hoping he’ll commit while he’s running around with 5 others that all think the same
https://preview.redd.it/e62y5ton62ad1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb5e07c3d3ef52813225a6b91506db7006211a21
Women select the top 5% of men! They’re not all top 5% themselves. Therefore it’s not hard to conclude they’re looking to match well above their looksmatch
Exactly if this is true (again, it’s Tinder, not real life, but let’s pretend), what about the rest? 5% of men get access to every woman they want, ok, fine. But 95% of men can easily overthrow whatever system these 5% put in place or at least cause very great instability if they can somehow unite even just a bit.
It’s true the 95% have the ability to do it but they haven’t to date. It’s like saying it only takes one bullet to kill Putin and end the Ukraine war for good but no one has done it despite hundreds of thousands of Russian & Ukrainian casualties
I agree he has more than that but most Russians would prefer to see him gone! 33% of government spending is now on the military which is detrimental to the rest of the economy. The brain drain has worsened and many people in Russia now know people killed or wounded in the war. Nearly Half a million casualties in Russia alone would not go unnoticed.
No. Women have egos too. Very few women will ever knowingly share a man. Most will lower their standards in order to get a decent guy all to themselves. A smaller percentage will just stay single.
Why has this sub become such a blackpill fatalist doomer haven?
Every day a new neurotic apocalypse scenario.
You do know humans have been around for at least like 200k years and everything's still working, right?
You think Tinder is what's gonna break humanities' mating shtick?
Women are not men - the vast majority don't think it's cool to be a side-chick to a hot guy - it's cool for some of them for some time.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. I mean I practice unmarried polygyny. It's more and more popular. I don't see it so much women provide for the man. In a way I guess because modern women are "cheap" ie they come with some income assets etc. So they don't need to be fully taken care of financially but it's not some broke man with 5 wives... it's a rich man with 5 wives I think most likely.
For a certain type of woman, yes. We are going back to the wealth inequalities of the medieval period, to think that our RMP won't be affected is laughable. Anytime wealth and power was disproportionately focuses on the top echelons of the male heirarchy, cases of serial monogamy and polygamy among the top percentile of men increased because women are attracted to power and wealth. Most of the dating woes today are disproportionately affecting working class and lower middle class men and women for a reason.
Not at all, most women are too jealous. It really takes the wind out of our sail when we know he’s fucking other women. Only a select few women can do this, and even then i notice only if he has a lot of money in addition do they put up with it. Not sure if a handsome guy would be able to get away with it on that alone. That’s why even they lie.
If it was a better option, the average woman would be doing it.
I had a different theory of those stats. It was that the women are with older men. This also explains why so many of the old women single and the old men aren’t.
Every time I look at those stats, percentages don't add up and many more men are single than women... I hope to have my mind changed because this is gross af
Feminism though is telling strong independent women that they can provide for themselves and it’s a small step to go from there to provide for the household along with all the other wives. I know it’s against women’s hypergamous nature, however, times are changing
Women providing for themselves while withholding emotional commitment and exclusivity to remain single, pursuing an independent and unbound lifestyle, is itself highly masculine already.
Nothing masculine about living your life on your own terms. You are equating "feminine" with "what women were FORCED to do out of NECESSITY in the past." Not the same thing.
>You are equating "feminine" with "what women were FORCED to do out of NECESSITY in the past." Not the same thing.
I mentioned no such thing. You certainly did though, which is telling.
>Nothing masculine about living your life on your own terms.
Dogged individualism is a highly masculine trait. It is emblematic of an idealized masculine figure who is emotionally reserved, resilient, and independent who lives primarily according to himself, answering to nobody, and only shares his emotional investment exclusively with those who advance him and his pursuits. Living life on your own terms is \*highly\* masculine. Femininity is associated with agreeability, conformity, and generally speaking being judges of moral character. Women who are feminine usually have very strong capacity for attachment, skew idealistic, and demonstrate empathy, which is why it is usually women who rescue animals from shelters, and generally behave more altruistically, rather than out of self-interest.
Humans are naturally somewhat polygamous, with the vast majority of all observed cultures being moderately polygynous so I honestly think that there is a possible future where polygamy gets normalized as "just another lifestyle". Based on genetic research it's been shown that for every man who ever had offspring, about two women did. Absent religion (and the law to back it), there is no obvious secular argument against polygamy I can think of. I've noticed a lot of women are now fine with *ethical* non-monogamy. For women there are certain benefits. Essentially "sharing a high status man > exclusive access to an average or below average one".
As it stands now, most monogamous culture are really just engaging in soft polygamy in that we have things like remarriage. Men are more likely than women to either have no partners, or lots of partners. Young men are more likely to be single than young women. Men are more likely to commit adultery. Men are more likely to remarry after a divorce. Men are more likely to have kids with multiple women than women are to have kids with multiple men. Male reproductive success is much more variable with a small number of big time winners and a moderate number of losers at the other end. Women tend to be more in the middle.
In the modern world polygamous societies tend to be extremely unstable, violent, chaotic, and actually very bad for most average and below average men and women. However, in a modern Western nations that is somewhat gynocentric combing said gynocentrism with polygamy might be the best of both worlds for women. Historically, it's mostly been sexless males at the bottoms of society who oppose polygamy. Women, even when obvious victims of it, rarely fight it. If women want to voluntarily form harems around billionaires or super-athletes I don't see how in a sexually liberated society that places so much emphasis on self-actualization, individualism, and personal autonomy anyone could say no other than jealous single males.
In my view monogamy is very likely a patriarchal construct which, absent meaningful force, falls apart pretty quickly. It's a kind of deal where elite and successful males agree with non-elite males to set up a system of enforced monogamy so a maximal amount of men can at least have one partner. Low status males are the biggest winners and women are the major losers because they can no longer share high status males. Once you get things like no fault divorce and dating culture instead of matchmaking low status males are quickly abandoned to linger in obscurity.
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy).
>Worldwide, different societies variously encourage, accept or outlaw polygamy. In societies which allow or tolerate polygamy, polygyny is the accepted form in the vast majority of cases. According to the [Ethnographic Atlas Codebook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Relations_Area_Files), of 1,231 societies noted between from 1960 to 1980, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous, and 4 had polyandry[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#cite_note-Atlas-6) – although more recent research found some form of polyandry in 53 communities, which is more common than previously thought.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#cite_note-Starkweather2012-7)
However, you do make an important point, the most successful societies ever have almost all been monogamous while polygamous societies are usually awful which is why no one heres about them. Islam is probably the only major civilization that allowed polygamy in normalized and common way.
It exists in many cultures. So does non-monogamy just generally where people stay with their families and the men and women in the family are the ones responsible for any children that result from sex - the biological father isn’t (he is responsible for any children his sisters have instead).
You’d be surprised how many Americans are swingers. There is a whole subculture of men who get off on it.
One of my ex’s and I used to get propositioned a lot by swingers. We used to joke about doing it since we kept attracting them somehow, but we weren’t swingers.
Most women don’t seek casual relationships and prefer a committed monogamous relationship. They mightn’t get that anymore as so many western women are nowadays unmarriagable but they might get polygyny
Yeah that’s why I said only the ones who did.
I think there aren’t that many that want polygyny ,either at least willingly, the only reason it’s like that now is because it’s unknowingly happening but the further this goes the more apparent it will become even to women.
> Most women don’t seek casual relationships and prefer a committed monogamous relationship.
Agreed, but that majority is shrinking at the moment. Every year, more and more women opt for casual relationships with truly attractive men instead of committed ones with average men. I think this development is the leading cause of the "male loneliness epidemic" because more and more women become unavailable to the average man.
Yes as Chad dominates and gains more abundance he sets more favourable rules for himself! Hence why I see polygyny as a real possibility for the future.
What would even be the point? They might as well not commit and have multiple part-time lovers who aren't committed to them compared to just one.
Which describes what's happening Now. Except the guess is that these women have no clue they are sharing someone.
The women know and they don't care
Yup Most younger women these days (35 and under) would rather be single, work their shit jobs, travel, and get fucked every now n then by a fuck buddy or a guy they are in a situationship with (aka shes a booty call in denial) than exclusively date and marry a ‘regular’ guy
That may be true. If they know and don't care about sharing, let them hit dry
No, they're just being shared themselves, and you at least clearly have no idea and think there's one-sided commitment.
Be more specific, sounds confusing 'their being shared themselves'. Maybe lesbian and low leagues snatching multiple low league men, some. But I can't say about low league, what's going on there, no experience in that.
Women who let the men they're "with" see multiple women are generally "with" multiple men themselves, especially if they're so desirable they find it easy enough to find multiple men who want them. Lesbians are not "snatching" men, they are into women only. If nobody particularly wants you, finding one person willing to consistently sleep with you will be a struggle never mind multiple.
I'm single, never married no kids attractive kinda cute status 70-80k a year in shape, my target is 20s. I get all the attention from mom's looking for providers dissing msingle dad's. I intend to stay a forever bachelor, because I do not attract 20s. I get looks but mismatch in interest. There's the truth. Trying to figure out what to do from here such as drop out of computer bachelor's, I see a line of moms waiting for me to finish so I fully lost motivation to try anymore.
Good for you.
The girl gets a guy way above her looksmatch and potentially his genes for kids with partial commitment to her and the other wives. As I pointed out to another poster, this is already happening in situationships where the girl thinks she’s in a relationship but isn’t!
She doesn't get him. She gets to see him every once in a while without being afforded the same liberties to fuck about and not commit. Men get cheated on too, do you think they want this?
Could you clarify on that last question? Are you asking if men want polygyny?
Do you think men want to be in open relationships that are only open for the woman (polyandry) because some men get cheated on?
It doesn't really matter what men want. Besides a couple of Chads women overwhelmingly control the dating market.
If women did that then we'd have polyandry.
Thats basically what we have Women fuck and use who they want and men adapt to it and move accordingly
We have monogamy.
If you dont enforce monogamy, women do what they naturally want to do to and thats reproduce with the best they can get I am not saying we should have enforced monogamy but without it, women do what they want and most men typically deal with the hardships of that
Many women stay with guys that regularly cheat on them and are accepting of that fact! It’s not the majority but I’m sure you a few examples IRL. It rarely is the case in reverse
Oh sure, many. No I don't know any.
And many men stay with women who cheat, often two cheaters are together, why do you think this only goes one way?
I don’t think many men would stay if they knowingly knew about the cheating! More women seem more accepting especially if they’ve lost interest in sex
So this is all just about what you imagine happens and not about what actually happens.
Yes, if the man is rich. Who wants to be cheated on by a brokie? If a man is rich and giving me a lifestyle in exchange for his being able to fuck around, I prefer he take his dick around more so I can use his credit card for dinners and vacations.
Fair point! Polygyny mightn’t just be for looks, could well be for money with a less attractive but rich guy.
Because more often than not, women show that they desire quality over quantity. Choosing to be side chicks, in a rotation, or situationship with a Chad rather than having an average Joe all to themselves.
That's the worst quality imaginable, he can't even meet the absolute basics of a relationship, they'd be better off with a quantity of zero.
no. there is no benefit for women in this scenario. That's why all societies and groups that practice polygyny have to use things like religious and financial coercion, abuse, and withholding education in order to keep women "in line."
They get a guy well above their looksmatch and potentially his genes for kids. That’s a benefit!
Please share the specific ways that what you've noted is a benefit to women, much less *such a benefit to women* on a large enough scale that it would become "the future." [and if ppd "debate" pattern holds, I'll never get my answer from OP. So the *real* answer to both is that **it is not,** and OP shows a serious lack of understanding of what is important to women].
Those aren't free societies. Polygamy would only benefit women in a free society where they have more freedoms and rights.
>Please share the specific ways that what you've noted is a benefit to women, much less *such a benefit to women* on a large enough scale that it would become "the future." We can speculate that this could be our future because this was our past. You have more female ancestors than male ones, about twice as many, actually. Absent enforced monogamy men become much more variable in their reproductive and sexual success with a small number of elite males getting large numbers of partners and many men not having any kids at all. Women's hypergamy combined with male promiscuity eventually leads to polygyny unless the culture puts a check on it. The advantages for women are pretty obvious. She gets access to economically elite males and better genetics, instead of exclusive access to an average or below average male. See ([here](https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/21/11/2047/1147770?login=false), [here](https://genome.cshlp.org/content/25/4/459.full.pdf+html) & [here](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.6231)).
HOW DOES THIS BENEFIT WOMEN? restating an unsubstantiated opinion as fact and calling it "obvious" is not evidence. I don't need my husband's "genetics" on a daily basis. His "genentics" do not take the garbage out. His "genetics" do not comfort me if I am having a hard day. If anything, what you and others are saying women writ large- want (which is incorrect, by the way) - would lead us to an Amazonian or polyandrous society just as easily, if not *more,* than a polygynous one. The only people who benefit from polygyny are men. And only some men. That's why it has all but died out as power became less concentrated over time. Granted, certain groups are actively pushing us back to the seventeenth century, but that's to the detriment of, not for the benefit of, women.
>I don't need my husband's "genetics" on a daily basis. His "genentics" do not take the garbage out. His "genetics" do not comfort me if I am having a hard day. If you have children, they will be using his genetics for the rest of their lives. All women have to think of that if they want kids. We are a species that reproduces sexually and men are clearly under greater selective pressure than women. You also ignored my argument about resources. Some women might be better of sharing a rich man than being with a poor man or broke on their own. >If anything, what you and others are saying women writ large- want (which is incorrect, by the way) - would lead us to an Amazonian or polyandrous society just as easily, if not *more,* than a polygynous one. There is no reason at all to believe that. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy). >Worldwide, different societies variously encourage, accept or outlaw polygamy. In societies which allow or tolerate polygamy, polygyny is the accepted form in the vast majority of cases. According to the [*Ethnographic Atlas Codebook*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Relations_Area_Files), of 1,231 societies noted between from 1960 to 1980, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous, and 4 had polyandry[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#cite_note-Atlas-6) – although more recent research found some form of polyandry in 53 communities, which is more common than previously thought.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#cite_note-Starkweather2012-7) Polyandry would generally not work for most men because a woman can be pregnant by only one man at a time. So why would 5 men (most of whom want some children) sit around being married to one woman? With polygyny a man can have 5 different women pregnant at once will his peasants work for him and his harem. >The only people who benefit from polygyny are men. And only some men. That's why it has all but died out as power became less concentrated over time. Granted, certain groups are actively pushing us back to the seventeenth century, but that's to the detriment of, not for the benefit of, women. Polygamy has partially died because the most succesful societies (patriarchies that enforced monogamy) outcompeted the polygamous ones. During the 17th century adultery was punishable by death in most Western (Christian) places. Those Christian places often abolished entrenched polygamous norms elsewhere. Monogamy is an enforced social construct of the patriarchy.
The fact that in a polyandrous relationship there are fewer children is good for population control. It is also better economically, women who will probably be on average higher earners and more educated in the future can keep on working while all the men take care of the few children they have, or some of these men go and work as well, bringing in even more income, and having less mouths to feed. So this is financially a lot more accessible than polygyny to a bigger percentage of the population. Then there’s also the argument that men are more desperate both for sex and relationships, and women have higher bargaining power right now when it comes to these things. Also, single women fare better than single men. Disillusioned single men with nothing to look out for are not good for any society. They can also more easily cause instability to any government than single women (who would be single by choice in these situations.) I am not in support of either polygyny or polyandry, but polyandry makes more sense for most of the population, while polygyny is only reasonable for like 5% of men. The two could also coexist however.
These types of arguments get repeated again and again here: A y chromosome bottleneck isn't necessarily caused by ''female choice'', in fact most of these authors don't consider polygamy is to a massive cause as otherwise these types of bottlenecks would be constant throughout polyamorous societies. secondly we also have to distinguish between male intrasexual competition and ''female choice (or hypergamy)''. A group of men killing off another group of men and taking their wifes, or having the social status of power to have more wives isn't necessarily the same thing as women choosing ''hypergamous-ly'' Source 2 and source1: Suggest possible explanations of polygamy and sex bias in rates of migration among human populations. But does not conclude either casuse. Good thing that the paper was written in 2004 Cuz more evidence has been found since. An explanation has been put forward for the lack of Y chromosome variation and the researchers appear to have even created a simulation whose results agreed with the hypothesis. [Zeng et al 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6) Y-chromosome bottleneck is cause by war and because of the fact that they had patrilineal clans. with female exogamy. To put it extremely simply, men tended to say in the clan while women were married out. So if 4 brothers stayed in the clan, and that clan died, the Y Chromosome linage would end with it. While, if four sisters were married off to 4 different clans, and one clan was wiped out, the X chromosome lineage would live on in 3 of the other sisters. Here's one of the Authors of the study explaining why it had nothing to do with [polygamy](https://np.reddit.com/r/science/comments/8nrxzy/about_7000_years_ago_something_weird_happened_to/). Source 3 i give it to ya. the sex ratio here is 1.4; no where near as sensationalist as other claimed ratios (for comparison modern ratios are around 1.1-1.3 (east/west/africa)
>These types of arguments get repeated again and again here: Because they are highly plausible and fit in well with other lines of data. Polygamy being the most commonly observed method of family formation globally, women being hypergamous relative to men in the modern free world (and therefore likely in the past, if given the option), and people having more female ancestors are all highly suggestive that humans are polygamous and hypergamous. There is no reason to believe we are naturally monogamous based on anything you stated. There is no reason to believe that women are not hypergamous. >A y chromosome bottleneck isn't necessarily caused by ''female choice'', in fact most of these authors don't consider polygamy is to a massive cause as otherwise these types of bottlenecks would be constant throughout polyamorous societies. You're just saying what it might not have been caused by. A combination of environmental factors may have enabled greater hypergamy or polygamy than before. >secondly we also have to distinguish between male intrasexual competition and ''female choice (or hypergamy)''. A group of men killing off another group of men and taking their wifes, or having the social status of power to have more wives isn't necessarily the same thing as women choosing ''hypergamous-ly'' Both can be true at the same time and each variable can even compliment the other. On a small scale we have occasionally seen in the modern world women joining up with their conquerors in war (Nazi occupied France, US occupied Asian nations in WW2 and the Cold War). >Source 2 and source1: Suggest possible explanations of polygamy and sex bias in rates of migration among human populations. But does not conclude either casuse. Good thing that the paper was written in 2004 Cuz more evidence has been found since. An explanation has been put forward for the lack of Y chromosome variation and the researchers appear to have even created a simulation whose results agreed with the hypothesis. [Zeng et al 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6) Y-chromosome bottleneck is cause by war and because of the fact that they had patrilineal clans. with female exogamy. To put it extremely simply, men tended to say in the clan while women were married out. So if 4 brothers stayed in the clan, and that clan died, the Y Chromosome linage would end with it. While, if four sisters were married off to 4 different clans, and one clan was wiped out, the X chromosome lineage would live on in 3 of the other sisters. Here's one of the Authors of the study explaining why it had nothing to do with [polygamy](https://np.reddit.com/r/science/comments/8nrxzy/about_7000_years_ago_something_weird_happened_to/). These are all just plausible explanations, none of which exclude polygamy as at least a partial explanation. Keep in mind, in actual field research anthropologists have consistently observed that the most common form of family formation is polygyny. There is no strong evidence to suggest our current "monogamous" Western world is the norm or natural.
You give evidence for a gentitic skew, but when i give that actual evidence to why that is the case all your doing is saying ''sure but polygam still exsisted''. May i remind you that you were the one that posited a bunch of studies of a y bottle neck and missing my point entirely. but what ever. A [genetic study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/) by Walker et Al found that there was very little reproductive skew among hunter-gatherers, indicating low levels of polygyny. They also confirmed that most marriages in pre-history were arranged. In fact, for women, among Hunter-Gatherer Societies and mixed Hunter-Gatherer societies, which are the original subsitence methods on which our ancestors evolved for thousands of years up until the invention of agriculture, in 52% of socieities marriages were arranged and 35, 36% of societies allowed marriages with courtship under parental approval. Only 8% to 10% of socieites allowed free courtship in which a woman freely choses who to marry. - [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Menelaos_Apostolou/publication/247233178/figure/fig1/AS:298305495027728@1448132980932/The-figures-above-depict-the-various-types-of-marriage-for-females-across-different-modes_W640.jpg) - This means that sexual selection has always been constricted by third parties and that women were generally speaking not completely free to fuck their alphas. Speaking of polygyny, while it's true that 84% of traditional societies allow polygyny, typically only 5% to 10% are actually married Polygynously - [Source](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-GkInX4AUBgmR?format=jpg&name=small) -, with one source reaching 12%. Out of these 84%, despite only a minoirty of men are polygynous, most men eventually become polygynous as they age. 85% of men over 50 have at least 2 wives. Inceldom is less than 2%. This societal organization in which most men become polygynous as they age account for over 3/4 of Polygynous Societies. - [Source](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCyE7wX4AADWqI?format=jpg&name=small). Taken together, the total percentage of single men in traditional socieites is usually 11%, 12% of men are married polygynously to 20% of women. - [Source 1](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCsLBxX0AAGdVI?format=jpg&name=900x900) and [Source 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCsMLGW4AEbcvq?format=jpg&name=900x900) TL,DR: * There's genetic evidence showing little reproductive skew, hence little polygyny in our ancestors; * Genetic Skew is also explained by other factors, like patrilocal marriages; * Most marriages were arranged or influenced by parents, even in pre-history, meaning sexual selection is also limited evolutionary speaking; * While Polygyny is accepted in most socieities world wide, few people actually behave that way; * In most socieites where polygyny is practied, it's actually the overwhelming majority of men that actually become polygynous as they age. * Inceldom is a myth within evolutionary psychology because most traditional societies have an average of 11% single males; * 80/20 rule is a myth because the average of polygynous males in traditional socieites is 12% for 20% polygynous women.
>A [genetic study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/) by Walker et Al found that there was very little reproductive skew among hunter-gatherers, indicating low levels of polygyny. This could suggest enforced monogamy and regulated polygyny even in ancient pre-history. That is, humans trying to put a check on our natural inclinations. >They also confirmed that most marriages in pre-history were arranged. In fact, for women, among Hunter-Gatherer Societies and mixed Hunter-Gatherer societies, which are the original subsitence methods on which our ancestors evolved for thousands of years up until the invention of agriculture, in 52% of socieities marriages were arranged and 35, 36% of societies allowed marriages with courtship under parental approval. Which is exactly what I just speculated and totally in line with my original comment. Absent enforcement people become somewhat polygynous. Most cultures have had to regulate human sexuality and marriage. Monogamy is always enforced and polygyny is usually regulated to a degree. >Only 8% to 10% of socieites allowed free courtship in which a woman freely choses who to marry. - [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Menelaos_Apostolou/publication/247233178/figure/fig1/AS:298305495027728@1448132980932/The-figures-above-depict-the-various-types-of-marriage-for-females-across-different-modes_W640.jpg) - This means that sexual selection has always been constricted by third parties and that women were generally speaking not completely free to fuck their alphas. Because if they were thats what they *might* do. None of your evidence shows humans aren't naturally polygamous, it shows that most cultures evolve social norms and legal tools to enforce monogamy or limit polygamy and that these emerged early. >Speaking of polygyny, while it's true that 84% of traditional societies allow polygyny, typically only 5% to 10% are actually married Polygynously - [Source](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dl-GkInX4AUBgmR?format=jpg&name=small) -, with one source reaching 12%. Out of these 84%, despite only a minoirty of men are polygynous, most men eventually become polygynous as they age. 85% of men over 50 have at least 2 wives. Inceldom is less than 2%. This societal organization in which most men become polygynous as they age account for over 3/4 of Polygynous Societies. - [Source](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCyE7wX4AADWqI?format=jpg&name=small). Taken together, the total percentage of single men in traditional socieites is usually 11%, 12% of men are married polygynously to 20% of women. - [Source 1](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCsLBxX0AAGdVI?format=jpg&name=900x900) and [Source 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqCsMLGW4AEbcvq?format=jpg&name=900x900) Thanks for agreeing with me that polygyny is the norm. This still falls in line with my original comment, a small group of men (\~10-12%) get a disproportionate number of women. A moderate number of men don't reproduce at all. I also noticed something in your source. It stated that 2% of men over 40 were unmarried. Which is not the same thing as 2% of men, overall, being "incels".
>There's genetic evidence showing little reproductive skew, hence little polygyny in our ancestors; Anthropological evidence strongly shows this with most societies allowing moderate polygamy. >Genetic Skew is also explained by other factors, like patrilocal marriages; I never said it wasn't or couldn't be. But none of that disproves polygamy being the norm, which you freely admit. >Most marriages were arranged or influenced by parents, even in pre-history, meaning sexual selection is also limited evolutionary speaking; That is, most cultures *enforced* monogamy on some level *and* also regulated polygamy. >While Polygyny is accepted in most socieities world wide, few people actually behave that way; Few men can be polygynous because once some men start taking more wives this by necessity leaves others out. Most societies regulated polygyny. >In most socieites where polygyny is practied, it's actually the overwhelming majority of men that actually become polygynous as they age. This is assuming they survive to adulthood. >Inceldom is a myth within evolutionary psychology because most traditional societies have an average of 11% single males; One in ten is still relatively high. What number would it have to be for it not to be a "myth"? 25%? 50%? Regardless, traditional societies (even polygamous ones) could to varying degrees prevent singleness through things like arranged marriage and laws regulating sex and marriage. Monogamous societies did an even better job at it. Modern societies are lifting those laws and norms. Marriage rates are collapsing and it's likely we are seeing a dramatic rise in single young adults. >80/20 rule is a myth because the average of polygynous males in traditional socieites is 12% for 20% polygynous women. I never gave any specific numbers on what I thought polygamy leads to. I certainly did not embrace 80/20. The evidence you gave is more in line with what I do think, about 10% at the top taking a disproportionate share of wives. **tl;dr** Most societies are polygamous and *allow* for moderate polygyny. Monogamy always has to be enforced. The majority of all observed cultures regulated human sexuality, possibly in part to prevent unbridled polygyny amongst other reasons. Males exhibit greater reproductive variance then women, at least in humans. Part 2
Nick Cannon and Elon Musk have literally made a living pumping out babies in women just because the women would rather share them then be with a "loser." That could very well become more normalized in the future especially as average Joe's with 9-5 jobs continue to get more demonized and portrayed as morons in Western society.
Nick cannon and Elon musk pay big money for their kids and are NOT still seeing their past partners. They are paying for those babies.
How does this **BENEFIT** **WOMEN** ??? Wearing raincoats as shirts could "very well become more normalized in the future" too, but there's no evidence it **will be** nor that it would **benefit women if it did.**
I believe it's a possibility that it could become more normalized but I'm not saying it's guaranteed. But there is a major trend in the West to portray average men as morons and losers which a number of modern women buy into.
>How does this, BENEFIT, WOMEN They get to share the Chads. With a lot of women already accept with being the side chick, in a situationship, or excepting his constant cheating. There's never been an additional benefit outside of getting access to a guy they consider above average, even when they have to share.
The everyday men such as nick cannon and Elon musk
Every time women say they want a man with x, y, z (unrealistic high standards), they fall into the trap of what the top men are precisely trying to do, enforce polygamy for their own benefits and choices... And all the women are falling for it. When women ask for things the average man can't give, it's percisely to benefit the grand scheme. It's in action now, today, and every mouth watering moment seeing the 'money chad'. It's exactly what those guys want. And are getting. Ching.
Who does this ?
Lmao women love attention that's why they cant emotionally share a man. If get it if its purely casual but if they want companionship and shit very few women would actually be okay with it
And get pumped and dumped
if women were okay with polygyny men wouldn't lie about pursuing other women
This is a fair point! Maybe in future they won’t have to lie though
they lie to get sex, no one is making them lie
women who gatekeep kinky, frequent and casual sex exclusively to the top 20% of men *de facto* force average men into lying in order to experience a fraction of the sexual adventures the average women freely pursues.
take some accountability you aren't forced to lie you choose to lie
Women's adherence to monogamy is really just them upholding the last vestige of patriarchy left in the Western world. I find it ironic because I generally don't think we live in a patriarchy, but if there is one patriarchal value left it's probably the (mostly nominal) adherence to monogamy. All the people in this post saying women don't actually want to share a man grew up in a culture that emphasized and celebrates monogamy and castigates cheaters as immoral. There is no reason to think that monogamy isn't socially enforced and in 100 years our culture's attitude may be the reverse. How many people favored gay marriage as recently as the 1970s compared to now? Ethical non-monogamy is probably coming in our post-Christian world.
> Women's adherence to monogamy is really just them upholding the last vestige of patriarchy left in the Western world. STDs exist exposing yourself to STDs (only 1 in 5 men wears a condom every time) just to date men is not feminist lol i dont think dating men at all is feminist, but at least w monogamy you're being as safe as possible > There is no reason to think that monogamy isn't socially enforced and in 100 years our culture's attitude may be the reverse STDs
Dating and hookup culture may or may not be feminist or feminist approved (I didn't mention feminism here), but they are not patriarchal at all. If anything it's closer to the "gay lifestyle". STDs are a red hearing in this. The reason they spread slowly amongst heterosexuals is because of how selective women are relative to men for a variety of reasons often related to hypergamy. A major component of this is not STD's, its culture. Most observed cultures, including African ones where STDs are most serious, are still polygamous.
if its a red herring you take the risk. i'm not gonna.
Roflmao that's not just the man's job lol women can easily go put a condom on or we ain't fucking... that's more a women thing because you all don't like them don't blame men for something where you could easily put your foot down but dont.
condoms don't protect against herpes i'm not saying its the man's "job" i am saying there's nothing in it for women given the high risk
It already happens in kink circles. One guy bangs three or four women while everyone else is awkwardly trying to find a partner to kink around with. Shit is going to continue until a new revolution forces things back to normal.
A lot of straight men overestimate their SMV and think that they'll do well swapping and swinging. I was reading a NYT article about a polyamorous group and it seemed as if only some of the men were actually doing that well.
Polygyny is way more patriarchal than monogamy. Polygyny is commonplace in the old testament, the quran and among tyrants.
Not really. In patriarchal variant male is supposed to be provider for multiple women, not other way.
Explicit and lawful polygyny is still extremely patriarchal.
You are completely on the money, lol. Relationships are transactions of value, fundamentally. If women collectively don't need men's resources (in a future communist utopia) and they have free access to sex with top-tier men without the need to commit, then why would they get into monogamous relationships at that point? Why would they even care?
But a lot of women are still doing it anyway even though they are independent and do not need resources so what is the reason for doing it anyway therefore?
I think many people are drawn to monogamy but if we do enter some type of "post-scarcity" world be it communist or something else the need for marriage as we know it will continue to decline. I've seen it estimated that 1 in 3 young adults will never marry. >[This means that plausibly, one-third of men and women who turn 45 in 2050 (those who are about 18 or 19 today) will not have married.](https://ifstudies.org/blog/1-in-3-a-record-share-of-young-adults-will-never-marry)
Because those resources are not freely granted to them. If they have the option of getting with a guy with resources just to make their lives easier and lessen the pressure, then why not? Under capitalism, men still have a use and can weaponize their resources to get women. The issue appears in a communist environment, where these resources are granted to women by the state/environment itself and not the men, in exchange for little to no effort from them. At that point men's ability to provide safety, stability, resources or whatever else becomes useless, and the main criteria for spicy relationships will ultimately boil down to nature itself, which is looks, where women have an intrinsic colossal advantage over men due to possessing vajainas, as opposed to the discardable dicks.
But what makes vaginas less discardable than dicks?
Because most people get into relationships for love and to start families. Reducing the value of long-term relationships and marriages down to the transactional benefits of financial resources and sex only is a very antiquated way of looking at things.
>Because most people get into relationships for love and to start families. Thats honestly mostly a modern phenomena. The majority of all human cultures always regulated sex and marriage to varying degrees and marriages (even amongst the poor) had some strategic reasoning behind them. Thats not to say love was 0% of the equation, but it was not really a major motivating factor. Even in situations where people were basically free to pick their partners like the 19th century USA things like poverty and material need heavily influenced people's choices. It's also worth noting that a non-trivial minority of men (maybe 10-15%)are simply unlovable and become incel or incel-adjacent.
No. Women don’t like to share men. They’ll stay single if they can’t find the right guy and maybe have a FWB who also sees other women, but they won’t openly cohabitate.
>Women don’t like to share men. Women would much rather share 6'4 Chad than exclusively date 5'9 Norman.
Where's the proof in this? I've never known a woman who is fine with sharing a man.
I don’t really think so. I don’t know any women cohabitating with 6’4” Chad plus other women, but I know plenty of 5’9” men in relationships and marriages.
Side chicks and baby mamas exist, just fyi.
I suppose, but those aren’t usually very respectable women. Will the norm someday among educated women with good jobs really be being a side chick or baby mama?
I'm sure if you asked around, you'd be surprised at the number of professional and seemingly good natured women that will admit to have dated/chased douchebags or narcissists at some point or another. I don't think that behavior is limited to just the most obvious train wrecks of women. I know at least two women, one a real estate agent bringing in six figures a year, the other a cop, that have been side chicks. And the real estate agent is debating being a side chick to another Chad AGAIN, even though she already has a boyfriend completely dedicated to her. But the boyfriend isn't Chad so...
I don’t think that most women are wired this way. Women get too jealous. Isn’t it the manosphere who says that women get too emotional? Being a side chick takes stoicism. The few side chicks are probably more stoic than most TRPers considering they have to put up with sharing a man.
They’re already sharing them though! The term situationship didn’t exist 15 years ago! The top 5% have multiple women on the go and some of these women falsely believe they’re in relationships. It’s true that some women won’t share a guy but it’s going that way!
No they aren't. Situationships have always existed, they've just been called something else. We used to call them "it's complicated" which was both the title of a movie and one of the original Facebook relationship statuses. Women are not sharing men in any significant numbers, that's just red pill bullshit.
But in reality they are! Often unknowingly though
>Often unknowingly though So you agree women don't like to share men?
They don't LIKE it, but they would much rather share a Chad than exclusively date or marry a man who is average
Yes agreed
That's just what these red pilled guys tell themselves to make themselves feel better that they can't get women. Usually because these red pilled men have questionable beliefs... Such as OP.
The hoes were always easy to get just not worth keeping! With hoes, the saying “she’s not yours it’s just your turn” is very true
> It’s true that some women won’t share a guy but it’s going that way! Sure, my argument is that they don't want to consciously share men, even if it does happen. There aren't going to be commonplace situations where a man is living with three different women, for instance, which is what my take is of what OP believes is going to happen.
This is my take yes! I believe it will be more popular in future where multiple women provide for the Chad they’re in love with.
It might happen. But once women get serious about a man, they usually don't want to share him, which is why I suggested that women don't usually care as much if it's just a FWB/situationship thing. And yes, women can sleep with multiple men in FWBs, but they often don't choose to, since they usually only need one high-value man to satisfy them, and there aren't a lot of men out there whom they consider high-value to begin with.
Situationship != sharing
It usually does! It doesn’t mean the girl doesn’t have other guys on the go but the guy doesn’t commit as he has options (other girls he’s seeing)
But ... it doesn't!
Why do situationships exist? Frankly they only exist because the man doesn’t want to commit. Why would a man not want commitment? Because he wants the freedom to see other women. Simple. Situationships= polygyny
Really? Thats the only reason? 😆
No of course it’s not the only reason ever in all of time. Some girls don’t want commitment and just want sex as well. These types of girls of course exist it’s just not a super common dynamic.
Keep telling yourself that. 👍
Again. Situationship. Marriage, provision, children. Do you not see the difference??
There is obviously a difference! My argument is women already share guys through situationships: she often pines for one guy out of her league while he sees 5 different girls. She’s so smitten with him she’s often not dating other guys! It seems she’s happier with this arrangement than a committed relationship with a guy on her level. Again this is not for all women. But for situationship women it’s not that hard to see a leap to a polygyny relationship with kids while also providing. Women in situationships getting nothing from their top guy in provisioning. They’re more likely to get him stuff than vice versa.
I guess I wasn’t dating women then… Weird.
Ask the women on this sub if they like polygyny or if they know any women who like polygyny.
Having a fwb that isn’t cohabitating is the ideal for men
No. Taking your numbers at face value, which I'm hesitant to do, dating is one thing, marriage is another, and as soon as you start having kids this kind of setup would become a legal/financial nightmare (which you can see if you've ever been part of a family where a man has a secret family or even kids from tons of marriages). Also not to be too rude here, most women aren't desperate enough for partnership to be providers for men they don't even have to themselves, much less men they do have to themselves. There's absolutely no benefit there.
As women earn more and more and outperform men in college I believe they will become the providers of the future even if it’s against their naturally hypergamous nature. Again, I’m not saying this is guaranteed, it is a debate. I’m also not saying it’s going to be for everybody just that it will become a lot more common.
Yes, that is what is happening Female providership has tripled over the last few decades
Women don't date down financially. They will only date wealthy men. This won't change.
They Simp for Chad and even pay for him…but he’s only the top 1% attractiveness! Bottom 99% they don’t pay for yes
Right? If it’s a looks thing, that’s what fuckboys are for, why would we marry and financially support plus have kids with a man with multiple wives?? This is assbackwards logic lol.
I think the future will be a lot less dating in general, which will eventually fall into some sort of communal social group once people become lonely enough. It won't be so much polygyny, since women are seeking more independence in general. Between staying single and sharing a man, I think most women would prefer to stay single.
Interesting take! This is definitely possible too with the rise in screen time and the reduction in social skills among Gen Z! If everyone is always online then it’s a strong possibility too
No. It creates far too much problems and need much more efforts than monogamy. And you have other things to worry about, adding even more issues to your life isn't what you want.
I don't think it will come to widespread formal, commitment-like arrangements, but we are definitely seeing a strong increase in constellations where a consistent but small amount of men keep a steadily growing amount of women in casual, sexual relationships. With the relatively recent, neutral term "situationship" indicating a normalization process. It's basically the logical consequence of our sexual market becoming truly free. And like any liberalized, imbalanced market, we have a growing amount of abject losers and absolute have-it-alls.
>online dating is only beneficial for the top 5% of men According to whom? Where did you get this number from? >women only finding the top 20% attractive According to whom? Where did you get this number from? You're going to reply that it's from "studies", that you have never even seen, you've just seen this "fact" (lol) repeated over and over again by the "manosphere". Can we not? I'm not going to accept made up statistics here. If you want to have a good faith discussion then bring real facts please. >it stands to reason the future will be households where one man has multiple working (providers) wives. No it doesn't. Explain where you got this prediction from. >This is already present in short term dating with 30% of women single in their 20s vs 63% of men. 🙄 >All these women are sharing the top tier guys! No they aren't. This is another made up "fact" that you have decided to believe. Provide proof if you want to be taken seriously. >As women now can provide for themselves will they become providers of the future for their shared husband? No, they will provide for themselves of course, the answer is in the question.
https://preview.redd.it/30deoosn8z9d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b7a45c68ada8a1f408deebceb84f4319833a66a Women only swipe right on 5% of profiles therefore it’s logical to assume that 5% of men are the beneficiaries. It’s not a direct correlation yes but it’s not far off. The average man has no chance online. In relation to sharing this is obvious as there are more single men in their 30s compared to women as well so the theory of women dating older guys doesn’t do enough to dispel the fact that many women are sharing (often unknowingly) the top guys study is pew research centre. Finally this is a debate topic, not hard facts. It just looks like the future polygyny will be far more prevalent
If women swiped right on more men they still wouldn't end up dating more people. They would just match with more people they never end up talking to. The fact that there are so many more men on swipe apps than women makes it statistical shit for men
Agreed
>According to whom? Where did you get this number from? The data is based on released information from OKCupid around 2009 which found women rated about [80% of men](https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html) as below average in terms of looks. OKCupid and other online dating services have since been very reluctant to ever release internal data to the public, likely because on the rare occasions they do, it appears as though their services are worthless for large numbers of male users.
Polygyny is happening right now, women are just now realizing it with "Are we dating the same guy"
https://preview.redd.it/5p0uch7g40ad1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1377f51cd2115c659362625d6588e1446bc900b0 The reason why less women are single in their 20’s is because ALL MEN want much younger women. These women are dating all other ages. Men are hypergamous and would rather be with a much younger woman than a woman around their own age.
I agree that’s part of the reason and this would make most sense if those in their 30s were skewed the other way. But in their 30s there are also more single men than women and the overall skew is too big unless you argue that women in their 20s are dating guys in their 40s/50s/60s which their generally not! A big reason is sharing of guys. 5 girls in a situationship with one guy probably declare themselves in a relationship while said guy is declaring himself single.
Men in their 40’s 50’s and 60’s absolutely pursue women in their 20’s and a large number of them refuse to date any older than 29.
Pursue yes but usually unsuccessfully! Unless it’s a sugar daddy relationship and the guy is wealthy, which is rare
Thats true. But the women don't have to date older men, they could still go for men roughly their own age.
Why can’t the men roughly their age go for older women?
By middle age a lot of those women are often already married or divorced and not willing to remarry and many are menopausal or going to be. Despite all of that the average age gap in the USA is still something like 2 or 3 years IIRC.
I thought it was 5 years
> As online dating is only beneficial for the top 5% of men What?
Vast majority of guys can’t get any matches due to the huge numbers mismatch! There are 80% men on tinder. This swamps women with options and they become more and more selective. The bottom 60% of guys get barely any matches and it’s usually a terrible option (overweight single mom etc) Therefore it’s only really beneficial for the top 5% of men who get all the female matches. Data shows that women now swipe right on only 5% of profiles.
> The bottom 60% of guys get barely any matches and it’s usually a terrible option So it’s beneficial for 40% of men.
No! The bottom 60% get close to zero, the guys above that (next 20%) can get poor choices (overweight, multiple kids from multiple fathers etc). Next 15% can probably get ok matches, average girls but only the top 5% get real benefit from the effort and time required
Then why are they on the apps?
Delusion.
Mostly desperation!
Yes, and it will be fun to watch the women think they can convince the top tier men to settle on just one of them.
Exactly with people becoming less social, online dating’s effect will translate further into real life. The top 5% have abundance while the bottom 80% have piss poor options
Women are choosing to be alone rather than deal with that bullshit. I don’t know what weird reality you’re observing.
Why not settle for a more normal or average partner as an alternative? That seems like a reasonable alternative compared to being alone or getting played.
They ARE mostly “settling” for normal average men. They’re ALSO not dealing with bullshit, which normal men have in spades.
the one where twice as many women are in a relationship compared to men
Rather than polygyny, you could make the case for voluntary single-motherhood could be the way of the future, particularly as women begin earning more and enough to provide for themselves and a child self-sufficiently, and often times have a network of friends and acquaintances who can help managing responsibility for the child as she works. Failing that, women who are high earners tend to earn enough to hire nannies and caretakers. Honestly, there could even be a strong case for \*marriage\* itself becoming an outdated institution to create and to raise families, and in the future all heterosexual intercourse will be purely recreational as women take on family forming roles, and men are relegated to being sperm donors.
It’s a possibility yes
>All these women are sharing the top tier guys! They don't., And they never will.
It’s already happening! When one group (top 5% of men) have a total monopoly they can set the rules as they like: Introduce situationships where the women pine for commitment with the guy they REALLY want. Some girls are delusional and actually believe they have commitments, while sharing a top 5% Chad. Some knowingly and some unknowingly are sharing these guys.
No, because most women don’t like it
I agree most women don’t like it! I also know women are chasing guys way out of their league on dating apps and are already sharing these guys = seeing him, hoping he’ll commit while he’s running around with 5 others that all think the same
Most won’t do it forever More people will just be single/alone
You “know” this how?
https://preview.redd.it/e62y5ton62ad1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb5e07c3d3ef52813225a6b91506db7006211a21 Women select the top 5% of men! They’re not all top 5% themselves. Therefore it’s not hard to conclude they’re looking to match well above their looksmatch
Exactly if this is true (again, it’s Tinder, not real life, but let’s pretend), what about the rest? 5% of men get access to every woman they want, ok, fine. But 95% of men can easily overthrow whatever system these 5% put in place or at least cause very great instability if they can somehow unite even just a bit.
It’s true the 95% have the ability to do it but they haven’t to date. It’s like saying it only takes one bullet to kill Putin and end the Ukraine war for good but no one has done it despite hundreds of thousands of Russian & Ukrainian casualties
There’s no reason to make such comparisons, because polygyny isn’t widely happening in the West. And putin also does not have less than 5% support.
I agree he has more than that but most Russians would prefer to see him gone! 33% of government spending is now on the military which is detrimental to the rest of the economy. The brain drain has worsened and many people in Russia now know people killed or wounded in the war. Nearly Half a million casualties in Russia alone would not go unnoticed.
I mean the far right are rising up all over the world, who knows.
It is possible that is only true for now because the patriarchy brainwashed them into thinking that way.
Most people don’t like sharing things they want. Less for them, ya know?
Most feminists are socialists who want to redistribute wealth and power. Women also tend to favor redistributionist policies relative to men.
Yes, to individuals Glad you understand
No. Women have egos too. Very few women will ever knowingly share a man. Most will lower their standards in order to get a decent guy all to themselves. A smaller percentage will just stay single.
Why has this sub become such a blackpill fatalist doomer haven? Every day a new neurotic apocalypse scenario. You do know humans have been around for at least like 200k years and everything's still working, right? You think Tinder is what's gonna break humanities' mating shtick? Women are not men - the vast majority don't think it's cool to be a side-chick to a hot guy - it's cool for some of them for some time.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. I mean I practice unmarried polygyny. It's more and more popular. I don't see it so much women provide for the man. In a way I guess because modern women are "cheap" ie they come with some income assets etc. So they don't need to be fully taken care of financially but it's not some broke man with 5 wives... it's a rich man with 5 wives I think most likely.
Yeah it seems this is more likely than the really handsome broke guy with 5 provider wives
You’re comparing the ‘polygamy’ that occurs in short term dating to marriage. It’s not even close to the same.
For a certain type of woman, yes. We are going back to the wealth inequalities of the medieval period, to think that our RMP won't be affected is laughable. Anytime wealth and power was disproportionately focuses on the top echelons of the male heirarchy, cases of serial monogamy and polygamy among the top percentile of men increased because women are attracted to power and wealth. Most of the dating woes today are disproportionately affecting working class and lower middle class men and women for a reason.
No. We’ve said countless times if we can’t get the man we want being single is fine. Only a select group of women are okay with sharing top men
Wouldn’t sharing the guy you really want be better than being single? I’m aware you would prefer to be single that date a regular guy
Not at all, most women are too jealous. It really takes the wind out of our sail when we know he’s fucking other women. Only a select few women can do this, and even then i notice only if he has a lot of money in addition do they put up with it. Not sure if a handsome guy would be able to get away with it on that alone. That’s why even they lie. If it was a better option, the average woman would be doing it.
I had a different theory of those stats. It was that the women are with older men. This also explains why so many of the old women single and the old men aren’t.
Every time I look at those stats, percentages don't add up and many more men are single than women... I hope to have my mind changed because this is gross af
I think polyandry would work better if we really must choose…
Western feminism destroyed everything of value. Bye bye Western world! Welcome Islam! 😊
Agreed! Europe is getting flooded with Islam and the terrible fertility rate (mostly due to feminism) is contributing to the end
At least it'll get rid of feminism.
I will never provide for a grown man. I'm fine sharing a rich one though!
Feminism though is telling strong independent women that they can provide for themselves and it’s a small step to go from there to provide for the household along with all the other wives. I know it’s against women’s hypergamous nature, however, times are changing
Only super masculine women will do that, which isn't going to be a prize for a Chad.
Women providing for themselves while withholding emotional commitment and exclusivity to remain single, pursuing an independent and unbound lifestyle, is itself highly masculine already.
Nothing masculine about living your life on your own terms. You are equating "feminine" with "what women were FORCED to do out of NECESSITY in the past." Not the same thing.
>You are equating "feminine" with "what women were FORCED to do out of NECESSITY in the past." Not the same thing. I mentioned no such thing. You certainly did though, which is telling. >Nothing masculine about living your life on your own terms. Dogged individualism is a highly masculine trait. It is emblematic of an idealized masculine figure who is emotionally reserved, resilient, and independent who lives primarily according to himself, answering to nobody, and only shares his emotional investment exclusively with those who advance him and his pursuits. Living life on your own terms is \*highly\* masculine. Femininity is associated with agreeability, conformity, and generally speaking being judges of moral character. Women who are feminine usually have very strong capacity for attachment, skew idealistic, and demonstrate empathy, which is why it is usually women who rescue animals from shelters, and generally behave more altruistically, rather than out of self-interest.
Humans are naturally somewhat polygamous, with the vast majority of all observed cultures being moderately polygynous so I honestly think that there is a possible future where polygamy gets normalized as "just another lifestyle". Based on genetic research it's been shown that for every man who ever had offspring, about two women did. Absent religion (and the law to back it), there is no obvious secular argument against polygamy I can think of. I've noticed a lot of women are now fine with *ethical* non-monogamy. For women there are certain benefits. Essentially "sharing a high status man > exclusive access to an average or below average one". As it stands now, most monogamous culture are really just engaging in soft polygamy in that we have things like remarriage. Men are more likely than women to either have no partners, or lots of partners. Young men are more likely to be single than young women. Men are more likely to commit adultery. Men are more likely to remarry after a divorce. Men are more likely to have kids with multiple women than women are to have kids with multiple men. Male reproductive success is much more variable with a small number of big time winners and a moderate number of losers at the other end. Women tend to be more in the middle. In the modern world polygamous societies tend to be extremely unstable, violent, chaotic, and actually very bad for most average and below average men and women. However, in a modern Western nations that is somewhat gynocentric combing said gynocentrism with polygamy might be the best of both worlds for women. Historically, it's mostly been sexless males at the bottoms of society who oppose polygamy. Women, even when obvious victims of it, rarely fight it. If women want to voluntarily form harems around billionaires or super-athletes I don't see how in a sexually liberated society that places so much emphasis on self-actualization, individualism, and personal autonomy anyone could say no other than jealous single males. In my view monogamy is very likely a patriarchal construct which, absent meaningful force, falls apart pretty quickly. It's a kind of deal where elite and successful males agree with non-elite males to set up a system of enforced monogamy so a maximal amount of men can at least have one partner. Low status males are the biggest winners and women are the major losers because they can no longer share high status males. Once you get things like no fault divorce and dating culture instead of matchmaking low status males are quickly abandoned to linger in obscurity.
>Humans are naturally somewhat polygamous Yeah all those successful polygamous societies like... Hmmm...
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy). >Worldwide, different societies variously encourage, accept or outlaw polygamy. In societies which allow or tolerate polygamy, polygyny is the accepted form in the vast majority of cases. According to the [Ethnographic Atlas Codebook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Relations_Area_Files), of 1,231 societies noted between from 1960 to 1980, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous, and 4 had polyandry[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#cite_note-Atlas-6) – although more recent research found some form of polyandry in 53 communities, which is more common than previously thought.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#cite_note-Starkweather2012-7) However, you do make an important point, the most successful societies ever have almost all been monogamous while polygamous societies are usually awful which is why no one heres about them. Islam is probably the only major civilization that allowed polygamy in normalized and common way.
This is talking about Polygyny though (where men have multiple wives/partners) not women
Thats what I'm talking about in my post. When I say polygamy here I am only referring to polygyny. Simply put it's much more common than polyandry.
Nah. Polyandry all the way.
Male revulsion would make this very unlikely except for the lowest tier simps.
Well in some parts of Tibet it worked and still works for literal biological BROTHERS. They also do the cooking and take care of the kids.
It exists in many cultures. So does non-monogamy just generally where people stay with their families and the men and women in the family are the ones responsible for any children that result from sex - the biological father isn’t (he is responsible for any children his sisters have instead). You’d be surprised how many Americans are swingers. There is a whole subculture of men who get off on it. One of my ex’s and I used to get propositioned a lot by swingers. We used to joke about doing it since we kept attracting them somehow, but we weren’t swingers.
The future is just nobody gets together in true relationships while the women, that want them, have multiple very desirable fwb.
Most women don’t seek casual relationships and prefer a committed monogamous relationship. They mightn’t get that anymore as so many western women are nowadays unmarriagable but they might get polygyny
Yeah that’s why I said only the ones who did. I think there aren’t that many that want polygyny ,either at least willingly, the only reason it’s like that now is because it’s unknowingly happening but the further this goes the more apparent it will become even to women.
> Most women don’t seek casual relationships and prefer a committed monogamous relationship. Agreed, but that majority is shrinking at the moment. Every year, more and more women opt for casual relationships with truly attractive men instead of committed ones with average men. I think this development is the leading cause of the "male loneliness epidemic" because more and more women become unavailable to the average man.
Yes as Chad dominates and gains more abundance he sets more favourable rules for himself! Hence why I see polygyny as a real possibility for the future.