Is Polygamy the Way of the Not-Too-Distant Future?

Russell Street

King Of The Trolls
I found this article fascinating and prescient. Note that Jan Libourel Jan Libourel once had dinner with the author. I suggest a click and reading the entire piece, but here's a Reader's Digest version.
Now Auditioning Sister Wives In A Suburb Near You | Riverside Green
So what does gay marriage mean to you, my overwhelmingly straight and male readers? It means your gay friends can have a wedding and they can inherit stuff and they can be at their husbands’ bedsides....But the actual implications for you are far deeper — and since we live in the new Gilded Age, it should come as no surprise that some men will benefit tremendously while others will be actively contemplating suicide.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?

I bolded the last part because it is an essentially inarguable assertion of the right to plural marriage. It’s also an inarguable assertion of the right of family members to wed. Why shouldn’t you marry your cousin, or your sister, or your mother? How dare the State stand in judgment of your desire to sleep with your sibling and inherit his or her property?

In other words, women don’t need marriage any more....
There’s just one little problem. Now that women are no longer forced to marry the men they need, they are increasingly choosing to chase after the men they want. Which leads us to the tired and annoying but not incorrect alpha male/beta male business. Conventional marriage was how beta males got women. They traded security and support for sex and love. But women don’t need that security and support anymore.

The end result of the sexual new order is this: Eighty percent of the women out there are fixated on twenty percent of the men.
It stands to reason, therefore, that some men are going to see the virtue of having multiple wives. Let’s say you are one of the Anointed One Percent with “bases” in New York and Los Angeles. Why not have two wives? Or three? Let me ask you a serious question: Do you know any married woman out there who wouldn’t choose being Leonardo DiCaprio’s fifth wife over marriage to her current husband?

Why not have a $3M home in San Francisco and share it with four other $250k/year earner wives? Why not have access to a rotating group of cars, vacation options, child care? If you are pretty enough and you can bring some money to the table, you’ll be able to do it.

Mark my words. Within a decade, some charming cad in Los Angeles or another place where home prices are in the stratosphere will marry two or three women and challenge the court on it.

As soon as plural marriage is widely accepted, the best men will slurp up the best women.... Seven out of ten men will find themselves out in the cold. Not to worry. They can participate in polygamy, too. You see, if you’ve trawled the bottom of Craigslist and Tinder and OKCupid you already know that there is a particular kind of “polyamory” out there…

…where one woman, usually dressed in vintage clothing stuffed to obscene proportions by 21st-Century cellulite and covered in meaningless tattoos, enjoys the adoring servitude of multiple omega males who will pay any price and bear any burden for an occasional escape from the masturbatory pornucopia set out by modern society for those of us who are too ugly or poor or socially awkward to seduce six-figure riot grrls from the Marketing Dep’t.

As more and more women choose to be some charming alpha’s part-time lover, the remaining women will be able to leverage their assets very effectively, and one of them will eventually decide that she’d like to be married to five Java coders and enjoy a half-million dollars of household income. What can the Supreme Court do but nod its head?
I linked this article to my Fb. Waiting to see if any of "liberals" or "progressives" will respond. Besides a huge waste of time, resources,and energy, democracy was defeated. This is one of the few cases in which the slippery slope argument can succeed, who is to deny my "rights" to have multiple wives, underage wives, underage same sex partners, or even animals. It also brings up another point, the concepts of male (XY) and female (YY) should be eliminated since Caitlyn Jenner is now celebrated and embraced.
As a non-baller male, I'm not looking forward to my future time-sharing some fat white trash chick.
But since, as Journeyman Journeyman has stated, marriage is about property now...the die have been cast.
I wonder if the government subsidized financial incentives are removed, how many of these liberals would scream "gay rights"
A perceptive piece by old Jack. He was perhaps the most clever poster ever on AAAC. Given the fact that plural marriage is sanctioned by many religions and cultures, it will be hard to comprehend how its practitioners can be denied their rights since the Supreme Court has jettisoned letting the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and Anglo-Saxon cultural norms determine who can marry whom.

Of course, I suppose it has been practiced right along--and not just by fundamentalist Mormons in remote desert hideaways--case in point, Hugh Hefner.

Of course, any man who would want multiple wives is a bloody idiot, and that would go treble for high achieving, exceptionally good-looking women. They all have overblown opinions of themselves and feel tremendously entitled, and I can only imagine the rivalry, politicking and infighting among the wives. Even in Muslim lands, where the Sultan or Caliph could sequester his women in secluded harems guarded by burly eunuchs with razor-edged scimitars, the amount of intrigue and conspiracy among the women often had sanguinary results.

I suppose Hefner could keep the peace among his women because most of them, I suspect, had little going beyond their beauty. Were they not in his "harem," they would have been porn stars, high-dollar strippers, "escorts," things like that. Even Hef's existence was disturbed by bitter rivalries among his womenfolk, I have read.

Getting back to the fundamentalist Mormons, I think some of these cults, like the Jeffs group, managed to succeed because they somehow keep their women "zombified." (Maybe "Stepfordized" would be a better term--I don't know.)

I note that comparatively few of my 30-year-old stepson's contemporaries have gotten married. I think marriage is overall kind of a dying institution. Men are probably better off for it. As one pal of mine said, "Pictures of women are often a great deal more satisfying than actual women."

Just a few random thoughts.
Last edited:
I think the example of separate faraway houses each having a dedicated wife is the most plausible, the same way multiple home owners have redundant wardrobes and the like.
The key points are that the socio-economics cited are real and favorable to these situations, and that the foundation for social and legal acceptance had already been laid by the rainbow crowd. And, there's already at least two cable shows that have featured polygamy in a fairly neutral light. Dare I mention the proliferation of incest themes in cable programming? You'd be a fool not to notice the proliferation of gay television characters over the last two decades, their exposure and favorability closely aligned with society's Overton window through the time period.
The whole Western world is going down the fucking shitter. The weird thing is, most people seem to be happy about it, or at least pretend they are. The U.S. and UK will be third world shitholes in my lifetime if things carry on how they are.
The whole Western world is going down the fucking shitter. The weird thing is, most people seem to be happy about it, or at least pretend they are. The U.S. and UK will be third world shitholes in my lifetime if things carry on how they are.

I blame it on the shitty immigration rules. This is coming from an immigrant.
Son of an immigrant here. Difference is I think that in those days people wanted to move to a country and integrate. Now they seem to want the host country to adapt to them.

I'm in favour of immigration as long as:

1. It's properly controlled and the numbers are not transformative.
2. We have strong culture that we are proud of and want to preserve, and that immigrants are expected to adapt to.

Neither of those apply to the UK. Our indigenous people are thuggish morons and our politicians seem to be actively seeking the destruction of the country. We have no values, no history, no culture, no morals, and no identity any more. Add mass immigration and the suicidal delusion that is multi-culturalism and put simply we are fucked.

We're also bankrupt, so that doesn't help much either.
I hate how most people that come to the US and I bet it is the same for other countries such as Canada, and European ones is that the local inhabitants are the ones that must adapt to the immigrants when should be the other way around. Also, they expect the government/county/city help them on every single fucking thing they need. You decided move over here? pay taxes and all the shit you need to pay that you didn't pay for in the toilet you were before. You don't want to pay for that? well fuck you, go back to the shithole and don't complain get your son gets mutilated in front of your eyes. Fuck, no wonder I'm so fucking racist. I came here a couple of years ago and I have done far much better than people that have been here since they were born, but because they are too fucking lazy, study shitty career, and can't fucking talk not even if their life depends on them they get fucked. Also that shit of just letting anybody in because they are from some shitty country in hope to help them? what sort of shit is that? Really? fuck you. First our own people then the others, it is not our fault that your country never got its shit together, also what kind of shit is that no fucking background check on your country of origin? that's some liberal commie shit right there. You must past that one first and then one here, there is a reason why you left and it better be a good one because you got kidnap or some shit, not because you were not paying taxes or were laundry money for drug dealers.

I will go to sleep now


I hate to get too political here, but there is a truth the above. Once people were members of a community, and bound by reasonable expectations. Now everyone has this dog-eat-dog attitude where their personal gain is the one and only thing that matters. It leads to so many societal ills. A unifying culture that has codes for maintaining an operating society is necessary, you get a nation full of uncooperative toddlers otherwise.
All the ills of society should just go to Cali and Florida and leave the rest of us alone.
Back to topic. The legal challenge begins:

Montana Polygamists Applies for Marriage License Under Equality Law

Frankly, I see no reason how they cannot succeed. And they should succeed. Muslims will push for it too. This has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage, I just think this serves to expose the farce of the state governing relationships.

The larger issue here is free will and freedom of choice. The only ones ostracized here are the religious fringe.

If you believe in free will, libertarianism, liberal/progressive, human rights, and conservation, you should celebrate the legal challenge. Marriage is just another power the state shouldn't have.
I can't wait to see the strained logic used to counter this. The SJW crowd is basically falling in on "because I said so" territory, as their complete inconsistency is overwhelming.
I found an odd call to polygamy to save marriage in a two year old column on the true marriage killer, divorce.
I heard that when a plant is about to die, it may use its last burst of energy to produce more seeds. The same has been said about animals in danger. They tend to produce more female offspring as a desperate attempt to continue the species. This is what we have been forced to do with marriage. That means yes polygamists, we need you too. You shouldn’t be allowed to marry anyone under 18 but there is nothing in the argument for gay marriage that cannot be equally applied to polygamists. For all the politicians and pundits telling us how sacred marriage is, it’s not easy finding one who hasn’t flushed it down the toilet at least once. Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan are the only two I can think of right now.
... If a culture is in danger of becoming extinct, lower the bar on membership. We live in a culture where divorce is all but applauded, so we should make it easier to get married. Boomer selfishness damaged marriage beyond repair and if someone wants to come in and breathe some life into it, then by all means, breathe.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email to buy additional rights.
I was very happy with the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. I was mostly happy for homosexuals. The bottom line, though, is that marriage shouldn't have been a government institution to begin with. Couples--gay AND straight--should have needed "legally binding domestic partnerships" as something separate from marriage, which in a Western context is very much a religious institution.

I struggle to have an argument against polygamy, so I suppose I wouldn't object to allowing it. The law against polygamous marriage probably impacts significantly less people than the law against same sex, so it's certainly a different scale. But if they are all adults capable of giving consent (unlike the underaged or animals), I guess it is ok. Polygamy feels "wrong" to me, just as I imagine same sex marriage feels wrong to people who were raised in very conservative households. So I at the moment have neither intellectual nor justifiable moral objections; those feelings are a product of social conditioning as opposed to rational thought process (which is itself affected by social conditioning, though indirectly and to a far lesser degree).

I imagine the logistics of a polygamous marriage are going to be a bureaucratic nightmare to work out.
Why be against polygamy? 'Cause every polygamist I've has been a weirdo fucktard.

Throw Polyandry into the mix and watch the typical polygamists shit themselves and oppose it.

The form of polygamy understood by the population and the practitioners is polygyny which is only half of the story.

Too bad Margaret Mead is dead.
Yeah. I've never met a polygamist before, but the second I realize they'd only be for polygyny, I'd probably stop listening to any arguments they'd make (well, I'd listen, but only to be polite).

I wonder how many husbands some ladies would be willing and able to rack up



Onto general polygamy: dating would have to be very awkward.

I used to know a decent amount about polygamy in Nigeria, but I have very hazy memories from my undergraduate classes (though one of my majors is "useful"--economics--my other major was history with a focus on religion in West Africa). But marriage is a lot less about romance than it is practicality in Nigeria (at least up to 50 years ago), so perhaps the courtship process is fundamentally very different.

Come to think of it, romance plays a much smaller role in marriage in East Asia and the Indian subcontinent (which is not to say it doesn't have a role, or that it isn't even the primary motivator of marriage...just that it's less significant a role than in the West)
Last edited:
But if they are all adults capable of giving consent (unlike the underaged or animals), I guess it is ok. Polygamy feels "wrong" to me, just as I imagine same sex marriage feels wrong to people who were raised in very conservative households.
Before they bullied the shrinks, the homos were correctly identified as mentally ill. Millenial very conservative household is average pre 1990s household.
I'll gloss over the current social stigma, as the original article made the correct analogy on that already.

I'll address the obvious purely biologic rationales for polyandry and polygyny, for those that didn't take dirty college courses.
Polyandry: Women, properly lubricated, can receive virtually incessant sexual stimulation, whereas men have a finite staying period and then need a break. Need moar men.
Polygyny: Women are ready to reproduce a few days a month, and should they succeed, they get almost a year off. Men are ready for more in a few hours, always. Need moar wimmin.
Societal conditioning continues with this article by a voluntarily cuckolded beta male appearing in The New York Times Magazine. As per the first post here, it's being presented as a feminist thing.
What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism -- The Cut
When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist.
The same way that the gay mafia labels all dissenters as homophobes, the label of patriarchy and anti-feminism is already being rolled out for use against those maintaining a conventional marriage. You won't let your wife bang other guys? How oppressive! Get with the times! If she loves that other dude, she should marry him too!
Five years or less. It's happening.
^Good Lord! What an utter wimp that "Open Marriage" guy must be. I thought Open Marriage had died with the 1970s. Any woman who is a self-described "feminist" will almost certainly be odious, but any man who calls himself a "feminist" is absolutely beneath contempt!
Feminism was the precursor to the gay mafia. Suffrage was the precursor of feminism. Lesson being oppression creates all kinds of exaggerated outcomes.
The New York Times is clearly at the forefront of pushing for this! Overt Op-Ed stage in effect.
With same-sex marriage on the books, we can now ask whether polyamorous relationships should be next. There is a very good argument that they should.
Do it for the children. It takes more than two parents!
On the other hand, it may turn out that plural marriages are very good for children, because more adults are available to share the physical, financial and emotional demands of caring for them.
Always look to the closing sentence to find writer bias. Interestingly neutral here.
Instead we should recognize that once we abandon the rigid constraints of history, we cannot be sure that we know where the future will take us.
Quite frankly, having one wife is enough. I can't really imagine how exhausting it would be to have two or more!

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom