Infected MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way

[BiggerChungus]

Honestly, that says a lot more about you than the people you're trying to criticize.

Do you not think that's what the media and most modern culture does?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Do you not think that's what the media and most modern culture does?

Okay, what era do you think had sexuality "right"?

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

Okay, what era do you think had sexuality "right"?

The one where we could punch one another when we cheated without police involvement, obviously.

 

[BiggerChungus]

Okay, what era do you think had sexuality "right"?

Anything before the last few decades probably. Sex being pushed as hypercommon and casual wasn't a thing for most of history. People weren't encouraged to go fuck everyone they possibly could. There were exceptions, yeah, but the general attitude for most of modern western history was monogamy being the right way to have a relationship. Now you get websites and media stories all over the place about how monogamy's lame and swinging is the way, and culture tries to hammer that point home. The redpill shits do it too, thinking hypergamy of men is somehow any better. Hypergamy itself is wrong, as is polyamory, as are open relationships, whatever. It destroys relationships and fucks up the mind. Look at how many cows are born after starting some kind of open relationship bullshit.
I've been using hypergamy the wrong way, also. Damn.

The one where we could punch one another when we cheated without police involvement, obviously.

Nah. The vocal minority of MGTOW who want wifebeating or no rights for women brought back are autistic, that's not something I or I think most of the whole group want.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Anything before the last few decades probably.

Ah, yes, the old "back before I had to know what sex was, the world was a halcyon era of pure and wholesome trad couples" line.

Sex being pushed as hypercommon and casual wasn't a thing for most of history.

Objectively wrong. Do you think prostitution existed exclusively for the benefit of single men before they married their trad waifu? Being caught with a whore was socially-embarrassing and would make your wife angry, but it wasn't seen as some unspeakable black mark or a criminal act until very recently. Look back to the ancient days, and prostitutes were often figures of power, even.

There were exceptions, yeah, but the general attitude for most of modern western history was monogamy being the right way to have a relationship. Now you get websites and media stories all over the place about how monogamy's lame and swinging is the way, and culture tries to hammer that point home.

Unless you narrow "modern Western history" to "American history between the late-19th and late-20th centuries", this is objectively false. A man of status in Europe was almost expected to have a mistress along with his wife. The idea that monogamous marriage was some unassailably-pure bond of fidelity is born out of the luxury of being able to marry on a whim, instead of out of survival or political benefit. Church teachings ran contrary to this, but most churches also preached abstinence from alcohol and very few people followed that either.

Hypergamy itself is wrong, as is polyamory, as are open relationships, whatever. It destroys relationships and fucks up the mind. Look at how many cows are born after starting some kind of open relationship bullshit.

Almost all five of the Civilized Tribes in NA practiced non-exclusive and non-binding marriages, and the Ottoman, Indian (both Vedic and Mughal), Chinese, and Japanese empires practiced various forms and levels of polygamy and were, objectively, successful and functional states. As I've outlined above, the "Modern West" practiced non-exclusive monogamy for most of its history. You are viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses to justify your present belief system. I believe in exclusive lifelong monogamous relationships being the ideal, but I'm not so deluded as to think that mankind has spontaneously become so faithless in the marital bed in the modern era.

I will close with this: If you seriously believe in exclusive monogamy, there are plenty of women out there- mostly on Christian dating sites and the like- who also believe in that lifestyle. They are probably not anywhere close to your ideal sexual partner, either in appearance or performance. They may believe in things you find absurd or incompatible with your own beliefs. They may simply have unpleasant personalities. But they exist, and your ideal virginal pure woman who looks like a glamour model and fucks like a porn starlet isn't going to appear before you unless you start praying very hard to Ishtar.

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

Here’s the thing with MGTOW. Most of it started as dudes looking for ways to improve themselves, not for the sake of getting chicks but for the sake of themselves. That’s all well and good, but then we get to the other guys who are basically just Incels bitching about women nonstop and forgetting the ‘self improvement’ aspect.
Example:

This Facebook-tier meme is what you would expect to find in a group of dudes focusing on improving themselves. However, this one here is more common:

It’s just spite aimed at a kids movie.
This is why I find this community fascinating, there's a marked divide in how these dudes want the 'movement' to go. The catch is that most dudes who focus on the lifting and all that, they don't bother with Reddit or memes, they just do their own thing. Then, all that's left are the woman-haters.

 

[Fougaro]

I updated my infodump post on TFM on several occasions whenever I remembered something or learned something new.

Hypergamy itself is wrong, as is polyamory, as are open relationships, whatever. It destroys relationships and fucks up the mind. Look at how many cows are born after starting some kind of open relationship bullshit.

Hypergamy in itself isn't wrong, but a natural instinct. A woman's natural instinct to seek out the best possible man to ensure that her offspring has the best possible genes is the reason why we're shitposting on the Farms instead of getting our shit pushed in by lions and sabre-toothed cats. As a matter of fact - and this may come as an absolute WTF - monogamy itself is, as I explained pages ago, an unnatural construct to reduce male competition and have an advanced civilisation. Never forget that in the end we humans are primates too.

The TL;DR of a TL;DR on the reason why everything is going to shit, why the nuclear family is eroding and marriage is dead has less to do with a "decline of morals" and more with everything being the natural side effects of a perpetually growing state that slithers its tentacles into the family and society at large and is alienating men and rendering them "obsolete", because normies were unfortunately given the right to vote.

Here’s the thing with MGTOW. Most of it started as dudes looking for ways to improve themselves, not for the sake of getting chicks but for the sake of themselves. That’s all well and good, but then we get to the other guys who are basically just Incels bitching about women nonstop and forgetting the ‘self improvement’ aspect.
Example:
View attachment 1963654
This Facebook-tier meme is what you would expect to find in a group of dudes focusing on improving themselves. However, this one here is more common:
View attachment 1963658
It’s just spite aimed at a kids movie.
This is why I find this community fascinating, there's a marked divide in how these dudes want the 'movement' to go. The catch is that most dudes who focus on the lifting and all that, they don't bother with Reddit or memes, they just do their own thing. Then, all that's left are the woman-haters.

It makes sense when you think of MGTOW less as a movement, but more as a coping mechanism.

 

[BiggerChungus]

Ah, yes, the old "back before I had to know what sex was, the world was a halcyon era of pure and wholesome trad couples" line.

You can't deny that the general value, perceived or otherwise, of monogamous coupling's gone down dramatically in the last few decades following the counterculture movement and "free love" pushing.

Objectively wrong. Do you think prostitution existed exclusively for the benefit of single men before they married their trad waifu? Being caught with a whore was socially-embarrassing and would make your wife angry, but it wasn't seen as some unspeakable black mark or a criminal act until very recently. Look back to the ancient days, and prostitutes were often figures of power, even.

No, but there was a reason prostitution was and is considered a taboo profession. Ladies and men of the night, not open-market peddlers. Yes, Rome and Greece had different views on this in some areas, but again, the largely dominant view throughout western history has been that it's a taboo practice. It's of course not universal, and you can see Britain and France having divided social views on it throughout the 18th century, but as a whole, prostitution was considered a low, scornful thing, not socially acceptable in the majority of societies.

Unless you narrow "modern Western history" to "American history between the late-19th and late-20th centuries", this is objectively false. A man of status in Europe was almost expected to have a mistress along with his wife. The idea that monogamous marriage was some unassailably-pure bond of fidelity is born out of the luxury of being able to marry on a whim, instead of out of survival or political benefit. Church teachings ran contrary to this, but most churches also preached abstinence from alcohol and very few people followed that either.

Most Victorian-era societies took a conservative approach to sexuality, not just America. The craze of mistresses was something that passed in the 18th century. It didn't stop it from happening of course, but it wasn't something accepted to be proud of. In the US alone there were multiple scandals involving Presidents or other politicians accused of having mistresses. Same in Britain, same in Prussia/Germany, same in Russia, and even in France. It wasn't a good-old-boys club thing anymore, and you were derided for it.

Almost all five of the Civilized Tribes in NA practiced non-exclusive and non-binding marriages, and the Ottoman, Indian (both Vedic and Mughal), Chinese, and Japanese empires practiced various forms and levels of polygamy and were, objectively, successful and functional states. As I've outlined above, the "Modern West" practiced non-exclusive monogamy for most of its history. You are viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses to justify your present belief system. I believe in exclusive lifelong monogamous relationships being the ideal, but I'm not so deluded as to think that mankind has spontaneously become so faithless in the marital bed in the modern era.

The North American tribes formed, fragmented, and reformed numerous times. Even the civilized tribes only had a loosely-connected confederative government, not a unified society with a unified culture. The Ottomans likewise were made up of numerous cultures that conquered and reconquered one another into one state, which wasn't part of western culture. India's the same, and even under the Mughals and Marathas it was more or less a connection of loosely affiliated nation-states as opposed to a cohesive entity. China had more civil wars and divisions than any other nation in history, and Japan was also completely disunified for the vast majority of its existence. They may've done alright, but it's not that polygamy was the cause of it or something, nor would it be what would necessarily destroy them. Being a morally wrong or self-destructive thing doesn't mean instant national suicide. You also should note that in most of those societies, polyamory wasn't a two-way street. Women were seen as property at best, slaves at worst. There wasn't some kind of swinging free love shit going on, it was typically men owning harems of women that were wholly subservient under culture and law. That's an even worse situation. Point is, they didn't see it as loose, non-exclusive, or whatever other modern lenses we have now. They saw it as men owning property and securing a bloodline. Wars were also fought in those countries, and in Europe, over bastard children, and infidelity could be punished - both men and women but mostly women - sometimes with death. The idea of a couple "seeing" other people wasn't an accepted idea even in those societies, nor was it a concept seen as some might describe them today. The closest you get are the civilized NA nations, but even then attitudes on marriage and monogamy varied greatly from culture to culture, and a lot of it was still based around the idea of men in leadership roles having multiple subservient wives. And just to reiterate, yes, those MGTOWers who say they want that shit brought back are retarded incels, but it's important to note that it's not like it's a common thing (at least not from the posts I've read about it) and that polygamy wasn't looked on the same way in historical cultures where it was allowed. In the vast majority of societies, east and west alike, hypergamy and polygamy wasn't considered acceptable in the modern-day lens of those practices, and even when it was practiced it wasn't universally accepted. France was considered an extremely "open" society in the 18th century, but even there Marie Antoinette and other nobles were hated by a lot of the lower class because of their (supposed) promiscuity and attitudes on sex.
I was totally wrong on what hypergamy meant, ignore that part.

I will close with this: If you seriously believe in exclusive monogamy, there are plenty of women out there- mostly on Christian dating sites and the like- who also believe in that lifestyle. They are probably not anywhere close to your ideal sexual partner, either in appearance or performance. They may believe in things you find absurd or incompatible with your own beliefs. They may simply have unpleasant personalities. But they exist, and your ideal virginal pure woman who looks like a glamour model and fucks like a porn starlet isn't going to appear before you unless you start praying very hard to Ishtar.

I do believe in exclusive monogamy, and I'm a Christian. Something about dating sites just never really seemed right to me though. I'm not looking to marry, but I also don't want casual sex. Moreover, I just don't want a relationship. I'm not looking for some porn star who can suck chrome off a bumper, I'm not looking for anyone, and I think that's the mistake often made about this whole movement, that if anyone (namely men) doesn't want to get into a relationship, must mean he either hates women or has unrealistic expectations. I wouldn't say I'm a card carrying MGTOWer, but it seems like a reasonable position to take more and more. Men choosing to not want relationships doesn't make them gay cuck incels. Look up Charles Gordon, British general in the 19th century. Even back then newspapers were running clickbait stories on him claiming he was gay, a eunuch, or a pedophile because he didn't marry and never had sex. In memoirs though, he was deeply religious and one of his beliefs was not having sex out of wedlock, but also had no interest in marrying. Some people say he was awkward with women, but it's not clear. Either way, he didn't hate women and he didn't just sit at home jerking off all day, he just didn't want to get married. Sometimes you just don't want that shit, and it doesn't automatically make you some loser who hates women. Nor would a woman wanting no romantic relationships be a man-hating psycho or shut-in cat lady. We can both agree that monogamy's best, but I'd say sex has been overdone to hell in its perceived importance in society in general, like you're not a functioning human being unless you're constantly seeking it. That's the attitude I get from a lot of MGTOW's critics, the Vox journo types blaming angry white males who can never get any, and yeah, some are, but some just don't want relationships, simple as that. Culture's gotten to where being reserved with sex is considered laughable, where being single or a virgin means something's wrong with you, and that of every human experience out there, sex has apparently become paramount. Sex is fun yeah, but it's not everything to life, and it's become like some kind of a vehicle for selling shit and pushing agendas. I guess there's something to be said about not going full-prude about it, but man, people are generally gonna be happier and more fulfilled sticking with each other instead of going out and fucking a bunch of different people. Like I said, the number of cows who've either sperged out or become cows because of getting into open relationships is staggering. I think humans are wired to seek a smaller number of partners. The (objective) psychological, emotional, and physical downsides to hypergamous polygamy just stack up too high against the only (subjective) advantage, that being getting laid a lot with minimal commitment.

I got pretty verbose with this shit but I hope I'm making sense, and I'm not trying to come at it in a "me right u not" way.

Hypergamy in itself isn't wrong, but a natural instinct. A woman's natural instinct to seek out the best possible man to ensure that her offspring has the best possible genes is the reason why we're shitposting on the Farms instead of getting our shit pushed in by lions and sabre-toothed cats. As a matter of fact - and this may come as an absolute WTF - monogamy itself is, as I explained pages ago, an unnatural construct to reduce male competition and have an advanced civilisation. Never forget that in the end we humans are primates too.

The TL;DR of a TL;DR on the reason why everything is going to shit, why the nuclear family is eroding and marriage is dead has less to do with a "decline of morals" and more with everything being the natural side effects of a perpetually growing state that slithers its tentacles into the family and society at large and is alienating men and rendering them "obsolete", because normies were unfortunately given the right to vote.

I agree to an extent, but like most primal urges it's meant to be challenged in order to make a better society. The known risks and problems brought on by hypergamy is enough, to me, that I think it's wrong. I don't want to tell people how to live though, but I see the upsides in "going your own way."

Here’s the thing with MGTOW. Most of it started as dudes looking for ways to improve themselves, not for the sake of getting chicks but for the sake of themselves. That’s all well and good, but then we get to the other guys who are basically just Incels bitching about women nonstop and forgetting the ‘self improvement’ aspect.

I totally agree there.

 

[off meds / online]

You can't deny that the general value, perceived or otherwise, of monogamous coupling's gone down dramatically in the last few decades following the counterculture movement and "free love" pushing.

No, but there was a reason prostitution was and is considered a taboo profession. Ladies and men of the night, not open-market peddlers. Yes, Rome and Greece had different views on this in some areas, but again, the largely dominant view throughout western history has been that it's a taboo practice. It's of course not universal, and you can see Britain and France having divided social views on it throughout the 18th century, but as a whole, prostitution was considered a low, scornful thing, not socially acceptable in the majority of societies.

Most Victorian-era societies took a conservative approach to sexuality, not just America. The craze of mistresses was something that passed in the 18th century. It didn't stop it from happening of course, but it wasn't something accepted to be proud of. In the US alone there were multiple scandals involving Presidents or other politicians accused of having mistresses. Same in Britain, same in Prussia/Germany, same in Russia, and even in France. It wasn't a good-old-boys club thing anymore, and you were derided for it.

The North American tribes formed, fragmented, and reformed numerous times. Even the civilized tribes only had a loosely-connected confederative government, not a unified society with a unified culture. The Ottomans likewise were made up of numerous cultures that conquered and reconquered one another into one state, which wasn't part of western culture. India's the same, and even under the Mughals and Marathas it was more or less a connection of loosely affiliated nation-states as opposed to a cohesive entity. China had more civil wars and divisions than any other nation in history, and Japan was also completely disunified for the vast majority of its existence. They may've done alright, but it's not that polygamy was the cause of it or something, nor would it be what would necessarily destroy them. Being a morally wrong or self-destructive thing doesn't mean instant national suicide. You also should note that in most of those societies, polyamory wasn't a two-way street. Women were seen as property at best, slaves at worst. There wasn't some kind of swinging free love shit going on, it was typically men owning harems of women that were wholly subservient under culture and law. That's an even worse situation. Point is, they didn't see it as loose, non-exclusive, or whatever other modern lenses we have now. They saw it as men owning property and securing a bloodline. Wars were also fought in those countries, and in Europe, over bastard children, and infidelity could be punished - both men and women but mostly women - sometimes with death. The idea of a couple "seeing" other people wasn't an accepted idea even in those societies, nor was it a concept seen as some might describe them today. The closest you get are the civilized NA nations, but even then attitudes on marriage and monogamy varied greatly from culture to culture, and a lot of it was still based around the idea of men in leadership roles having multiple subservient wives. And just to reiterate, yes, those MGTOWers who say they want that shit brought back are retarded incels, but it's important to note that it's not like it's a common thing (at least not from the posts I've read about it) and that polygamy wasn't looked on the same way in historical cultures where it was allowed. In the vast majority of societies, east and west alike, hypergamy and polygamy wasn't considered acceptable in the modern-day lens of those practices, and even when it was practiced it wasn't universally accepted. France was considered an extremely "open" society in the 18th century, but even there Marie Antoinette and other nobles were hated by a lot of the lower class because of their (supposed) promiscuity and attitudes on sex.

I do believe in exclusive monogamy, and I'm a Christian. Something about dating sites just never really seemed right to me though. I'm not looking to marry, but I also don't want casual sex. Moreover, I just don't want a relationship. I'm not looking for some porn star who can suck chrome off a bumper, I'm not looking for anyone, and I think that's the mistake often made about this whole movement, that if anyone (namely men) doesn't want to get into a relationship, must mean he either hates women or has unrealistic expectations. I wouldn't say I'm a card carrying MGTOWer, but it seems like a reasonable position to take more and more. Men choosing to not want relationships doesn't make them gay cuck incels. Look up Charles Gordon, British general in the 19th century. Even back then newspapers were running clickbait stories on him claiming he was gay, a eunuch, or a pedophile because he didn't marry and never had sex. In memoirs though, he was deeply religious and one of his beliefs was not having sex out of wedlock, but also had no interest in marrying. Some people say he was awkward with women, but it's not clear. Either way, he didn't hate women and he didn't just sit at home jerking off all day, he just didn't want to get married. Sometimes you just don't want that shit, and it doesn't automatically make you some loser who hates women. Nor would a woman wanting no romantic relationships be a man-hating psycho or shut-in cat lady. We can both agree that monogamy's best, but I'd say sex has been overdone to hell in its perceived importance in society in general, like you're not a functioning human being unless you're constantly seeking it. That's the attitude I get from a lot of MGTOW's critics, the Vox journo types blaming angry white males who can never get any, and yeah, some are, but some just don't want relationships, simple as that. Culture's gotten to where being reserved with sex is considered laughable, where being single or a virgin means something's wrong with you, and that of every human experience out there, sex has apparently become paramount. Sex is fun yeah, but it's not everything to life, and it's become like some kind of a vehicle for selling shit and pushing agendas. I guess there's something to be said about not going full-prude about it, but man, people are generally gonna be happier and more fulfilled sticking with each other instead of going out and fucking a bunch of different people. Like I said, the number of cows who've either sperged out or become cows because of getting into open relationships is staggering. I think humans are wired to seek a smaller number of partners. The (objective) psychological, emotional, and physical downsides to hypergamous polygamy just stack up too high against the only (subjective) advantage, that being getting laid a lot with minimal commitment.

I got pretty verbose with this shit but I hope I'm making sense, and I'm not trying to come at it in a "me right u not" way.

I agree to an extent, but like most primal urges it's meant to be challenged in order to make a better society. The known risks and problems brought on by hypergamy is enough, to me, that I think it's wrong. I don't want to tell people how to live though, but I see the upsides in "going your own way."

I totally agree there.

I think the conversation has scewed a little bit off course - how does any of this decrease the ultimate value of a romantic relationship? it's all well and good to say they're not for you personally, but to make a blanket statement that there's no point is quite a reach.

sex being more commdified in society won't decrease the value of other factors of healthy romantic relationships that people value - assistance in maintaining one's mental and physical health, assistance in attending to any potential children, companionship, increased financial stability, other things of that nature.

I don't mean this as an insult, but have you been in a mutually beneficial romantic relationship before?

 

[BiggerChungus]

I think the conversation has scewed a little bit off course - how does any of this decrease the ultimate value of a romantic relationship? it's all well and good to say they're not for you personally, but to make a blanket statement that there's no point is quite a reach.

sex being more commdified in society won't decrease the value of other factors of healthy romantic relationships that people value - assistance in maintaining one's mental and physical health, assistance in attending to any potential children, companionship, increased financial stability, other things of that nature.

I don't mean this as an insult, but have you been in a mutually beneficial romantic relationship before?

I think a better way of phrasing it is that it's not been, in and of itself, devalued, but it's in the minds of a lot of people and social norms at large that it has been, if that makes sense. The attitude towards romantic (monogamous) relationships has devalued, and more value's been placed on sex as a commodity and casual activity. That in turn influences how people view it, and then influences how they act on it. They get it told to them that hypergamy/swinging (I was using hypergamy wrong) is the cool thing. It doesn't ruin what relationships are already there or make them impossible to get into, no, it just makes it a lot harder to get one if it's what you're going for. Monogamous relationships aren't perfect either, don't get me wrong, but I think there's gotten to be some kind of stigma against it. I guess it's hard to quantify.
I've been in a few good relationships, yeah.

 

[off meds / online]

I think a better way of phrasing it is that it's not been, in and of itself, devalued, but it's in the minds of a lot of people and social norms at large that it has been, if that makes sense. The attitude towards romantic (monogamous) relationships has devalued, and more value's been placed on sex as a commodity and casual activity. That in turn influences how people view it, and then influences how they act on it. They get it told to them that hypergamy/swinging is the cool thing. It doesn't ruin what relationships are already there or make them impossible to get into, no, it just makes it a lot harder to get one if it's what you're going for. Monogamous relationships aren't perfect either, don't get me wrong, but I think there's gotten to be some kind of stigma against it. I guess it's hard to quantify.
I've been in a few good relationships, yeah.

See, that I don't agree with. Currently, based on my own experience and the experience of others around me, there's still very much an expectation for adults to settle down and get married, even if the age that happens skews older than it used to be. Personally, I only see swinging encouraged in rags like Cosmo and the occasional online article, and it's definitely fallen out of vogue in my generation. Open relationships and polyamory have become a bit more popular, but they're certainly not the norm or even on the level of competing with the popularity of monogamous relationships.

Also, hypergamy isn't necessarily the opposite of monogamy. It just means to marry or date "above your station", to put it in layman's terms. A monogamous relationship can still be hypergamous.

 

[BiggerChungus]

See, that I don't agree with. Currently, based on my own experience and the experience of others around me, there's still very much an expectation for adults to settle down and get married, even if the age that happens skews older than it used to be. Personally, I only see swinging encouraged in rags like Cosmo and the occasional online article, and it's definitely fallen out of vogue in my generation. Open relationships and polyamory have become a bit more popular, but they're certainly not the norm or even on the level of competing with the popularity of monogamous relationships.

Also, hypergamy isn't necessarily the opposite of monogamy. It just means to marry or date "above your station", to put it in layman's terms. A monogamous relationship can still be hypergamous.

Shit, I've been using hypergamy this whole time thinking it meant hypersexuality, like polygamy to an extreme degree. I didn't know it actually meant that. It sounds retarded to say it's a morally wrong thing then and MGTOW people bashing it are idiots.

 

[WinchesterPremium]

The one where we could punch one another when we cheated without police involvement, obviously.

The proper response to cheating is double murder suicide and anyone doing anything else is degenerating the sacred institution!

 

[off meds / online]

Shit, I've been using hypergamy this whole time thinking it meant hypersexuality, like polygamy to an extreme degree. I didn't know it actually meant that. It sounds retarded to say it's a morally wrong thing then and MGTOW people bashing it are idiots.

Incels and MGTOW-aligned incels don't like it because in their mind, it empties their own dating pool. If women of their own social status "marry up", they can't attain them.

Hookup culture definitely has become more acceptable, but that still doesn't impact the expectation to "settle down" once you reach a certain age. Society still doesn't look super kindly on 40 year olds sleeping around like college kids, and the dating pool at that age isn't exactly a wealth of options.

 

[Adamska]

-snip-

Necro'ing with a baitpost.

3/10 try harder.

EDIT: Wait a minute...

-bigger snip-

Because even if baitposting, too much effort to not be retarded.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

You can't deny that the general value, perceived or otherwise, of monogamous coupling's gone down dramatically in the last few decades following the counterculture movement and "free love" pushing.

No, but there was a reason prostitution was and is considered a taboo profession. Ladies and men of the night, not open-market peddlers. Yes, Rome and Greece had different views on this in some areas, but again, the largely dominant view throughout western history has been that it's a taboo practice. It's of course not universal, and you can see Britain and France having divided social views on it throughout the 18th century, but as a whole, prostitution was considered a low, scornful thing, not socially acceptable in the majority of societies.

Most Victorian-era societies took a conservative approach to sexuality, not just America. The craze of mistresses was something that passed in the 18th century. It didn't stop it from happening of course, but it wasn't something accepted to be proud of. In the US alone there were multiple scandals involving Presidents or other politicians accused of having mistresses. Same in Britain, same in Prussia/Germany, same in Russia, and even in France. It wasn't a good-old-boys club thing anymore, and you were derided for it.

1. I can, and I will. You are getting your entire map of human society from tabloid rags, forums that exist to seethe over all the sex/relationships their users are not having, and the Farms, which is a bit of both among other things.
2. Certain classes of prostitution were seen as taboo in some specific Western societies. Courtesans were a status symbol, the opposite of a taboo- and not merely in "Rome and Greece", either. In the Scandinavian countries where they were less common, there was also (before Christianization took strong hold) very easy divorce and a level of gender equality that would make the average MGTOW start ranting about hypergamy. Actually read about the Middle Ages instead of getting your information about them through pop-culture osmosis.
3. Yes, being indiscreet about your mistress at those times was socially-embarrassing, but that was almost always the limit. It was a "scandal" in the same way that some pop star these days having a pic snapped of them topless at a beach is- people will make a show of it, but there won't be consequences. Meanwhile, these days, a mistress is grounds to have your political career wiped out.

The North American tribes formed, fragmented, and reformed numerous times. Even the civilized tribes only had a loosely-connected confederative government, not a unified society with a unified culture. The Ottomans likewise were made up of numerous cultures that conquered and reconquered one another into one state, which wasn't part of western culture. India's the same, and even under the Mughals and Marathas it was more or less a connection of loosely affiliated nation-states as opposed to a cohesive entity. China had more civil wars and divisions than any other nation in history, and Japan was also completely disunified for the vast majority of its existence. They may've done alright, but it's not that polygamy was the cause of it or something, nor would it be what would necessarily destroy them. Being a morally wrong or self-destructive thing doesn't mean instant national suicide. You also should note that in most of those societies, polyamory wasn't a two-way street. Women were seen as property at best, slaves at worst.

Highlighting this part because, once again: outright wrong. India had very regressive views of women by modern standards, true, but Japan and China had complex social roles for both men and women that are often oversimplified to "women bow down to men no matter what" by people wanting to paint their cultures as morally-inferior for ulterior motives. In Japan, especially, the wives (and yes, there could often be wives, plural) of a samurai ran his household and would often fight in open battle as well, under the tradition of onna-bushi. Among the Five Civilized Tribes (and outward to other groups such as the Iroquois Confederacy), matrilineal and matriarchal societies are the standard, and while you could say they weren't having orgies constantly, they didn't have a concept of marriage- the closest thing that most Southern Woodlands Indians had was that a man would change which house he lived in based on what woman he was sleeping with most often, and if she kicked him out, well it was on to the next woman's house or back to his mother's house.
The rest of this section may be dismissed with one sentence- most people have always been, are, and will always be hypocritical. They will decry the sins of others while wallowing in vice themselves. Today, there are plenty of people of either sex who claim they are fine with an open relationship, but really mean that they expect total fidelity from their partner while they're allowed to sleep with anyone and everyone. Contrariwise, there are those who promise monogamy and fidelity, and then go out and cheat like crazy. This is not new, and I find the hypocrisy more repulsive than the acts themselves.

I do believe in exclusive monogamy, and I'm a Christian. Something about dating sites just never really seemed right to me though. I'm not looking to marry, but I also don't want casual sex. Moreover, I just don't want a relationship. I'm not looking for some porn star who can suck chrome off a bumper, I'm not looking for anyone, and I think that's the mistake often made about this whole movement, that if anyone (namely men) doesn't want to get into a relationship, must mean he either hates women or has unrealistic expectations. I wouldn't say I'm a card carrying MGTOWer, but it seems like a reasonable position to take more and more. Men choosing to not want relationships doesn't make them gay cuck incels. Look up Charles Gordon, British general in the 19th century. Even back then newspapers were running clickbait stories on him claiming he was gay, a eunuch, or a pedophile because he didn't marry and never had sex. In memoirs though, he was deeply religious and one of his beliefs was not having sex out of wedlock, but also had no interest in marrying. Some people say he was awkward with women, but it's not clear. Either way, he didn't hate women and he didn't just sit at home jerking off all day, he just didn't want to get married. Sometimes you just don't want that shit, and it doesn't automatically make you some loser who hates women. Nor would a woman wanting no romantic relationships be a man-hating psycho or shut-in cat lady. We can both agree that monogamy's best, but I'd say sex has been overdone to hell in its perceived importance in society in general, like you're not a functioning human being unless you're constantly seeking it. That's the attitude I get from a lot of MGTOW's critics, the Vox journo types blaming angry white males who can never get any, and yeah, some are, but some just don't want relationships, simple as that. Culture's gotten to where being reserved with sex is considered laughable, where being single or a virgin means something's wrong with you, and that of every human experience out there, sex has apparently become paramount. Sex is fun yeah, but it's not everything to life, and it's become like some kind of a vehicle for selling shit and pushing agendas. I guess there's something to be said about not going full-prude about it, but man, people are generally gonna be happier and more fulfilled sticking with each other instead of going out and fucking a bunch of different people. Like I said, the number of cows who've either sperged out or become cows because of getting into open relationships is staggering. I think humans are wired to seek a smaller number of partners. The (objective) psychological, emotional, and physical downsides to hypergamous polygamy just stack up too high against the only (subjective) advantage, that being getting laid a lot with minimal commitment.

1. If the Lord calls you to a life of celibacy, that is between you and Him. You came into this thread white-knighting for the MGTOW lifestyle, when in reality said lifestyle has about as much to do with being a confirmed bachelor as being a member of the "Christian Identity" movement has to do with Christianity.
I do not think humans are supposed to rut with dozens of partners like rats, and believe that exclusive monogamy is best. However, I also won't blind my eyes to the simple biological realities of our flesh and bone, which drive humans to engage in loose monogamy with a small number of sexual partners on the side. I say this is the biological reality because this is the mating pattern observed in every other primate that shares a close relation to humans. So, while my personal convictions run this way, I cannot haughtily decree those who don't live that way as beasts of the field.
2. I hate to break this to you, but failure to secure a mate early on has always been seen as a sign that something is wrong with a man (unless they occupy a social role that traditionally demands celibacy and isolation, such as certain priesthoods- and even then, said social roles are often the subject of rude humor). Even in your highly-monogamous societies of the past that you seem to idolize, being single in your mid-20s was seen as a sign that you were either a pervert, a man-child, mentally deficient, or of low character in some other way. This is true going pretty much all the way back in civilizations that had a concept of marriage, Western or otherwise.
3. There are as many cows born of bizzare, outsized pride about their virginity or seething anger about other people having sex than from unhealthy polygamous relationships. Once again, stop acting like the Farms are a repository of the zeitgeist.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

"Women will destroy society if not kept in check." No wonder all the lesbian bars are shutting down. Those unchecked women were engaging in too much domestic terrorism.

Have you seen the lesbian domestic violence rates?

 

[trashbat]

Currently, based on my own experience and the experience of others around me, there's still very much an expectation for adults to settle down and get married, even if the age that happens skews older than it used to be. Personally, I only see swinging encouraged in rags like Cosmo and the occasional online article, and it's definitely fallen out of vogue in my generation. Open relationships and polyamory have become a bit more popular, but they're certainly not the norm or even on the level of competing with the popularity of monogamous relationships.

people often talk past each other on topics like these because they don't realize they inhabit parallel realities. among the overeducated big city women who surround me, childlessness and nonmonogamy (and probably not coincidentally, SSRI prescriptions) are absolutely the norm even as said women begin to age out of fertility. when i share stories with friends just one economic rung below, they go "you know some weird people"

 

[off meds / online]

people often talk past each other on topics like these because they don't realize they inhabit parallel realities. among the overeducated big city women who surround me, childlessness and nonmonogamy (and probably not coincidentally, SSRI prescriptions) are absolutely the norm even as said women begin to age out of fertility. when i share stories with friends just one economic rung below, they go "you know some weird people"

I can think of no reality in the United States where polyamory is more popular than monogamy.

 

[BiggerChungus]

snip

I think there's a disconnect somewhere here. I'm not saying that polygamy was never an accepted thing in any society ever, I'm saying in most cases it wasn't, and as we know today, open relationships/multiple marriages are psychologically harmful. "Iroquois did it" doesn't mean we should do it today.

The rest of this section may be dismissed with one sentence- most people have always been, are, and will always be hypocritical. They will decry the sins of others while wallowing in vice themselves. Today, there are plenty of people of either sex who claim they are fine with an open relationship, but really mean that they expect total fidelity from their partner while they're allowed to sleep with anyone and everyone. Contrariwise, there are those who promise monogamy and fidelity, and then go out and cheat like crazy. This is not new, and I find the hypocrisy more repulsive than the acts themselves.

I don't think you can dismiss it that way, but I agree with the idea.

1. If the Lord calls you to a life of celibacy, that is between you and Him. You came into this thread white-knighting for the MGTOW lifestyle, when in reality said lifestyle has about as much to do with being a confirmed bachelor as being a member of the "Christian Identity" movement has to do with Christianity.
I do not think humans are supposed to rut with dozens of partners like rats, and believe that exclusive monogamy is best. However, I also won't blind my eyes to the simple biological realities of our flesh and bone, which drive humans to engage in loose monogamy with a small number of sexual partners on the side. I say this is the biological reality because this is the mating pattern observed in every other primate that shares a close relation to humans. So, while my personal convictions run this way, I cannot haughtily decree those who don't live that way as beasts of the field.
2. I hate to break this to you, but failure to secure a mate early on has always been seen as a sign that something is wrong with a man (unless they occupy a social role that traditionally demands celibacy and isolation, such as certain priesthoods- and even then, said social roles are often the subject of rude humor). Even in your highly-monogamous societies of the past that you seem to idolize, being single in your mid-20s was seen as a sign that you were either a pervert, a man-child, mentally deficient, or of low character in some other way. This is true going pretty much all the way back in civilizations that had a concept of marriage, Western or otherwise.

And it's a shame it's considered that way, that's the only point I'm "whiteknighting" on. That men should be assumed to seek out sex and relationships or else there's something wrong with them, and that society as a whole is too hypersexualized and common attitudes have drifted away from faithful monogamy to carefree sex. Then again, a good chunk of MGTOW just whines about not getting laid, and I don't agree with that either. I can get the idea though that a man just doesn't want to seek a relationship, especially when nowadays you get a lot more bad than good out of it. Where they mess up is thinking degeneracy is something only women are hit by. All of our culture's full of that shit, both genders. Like in my example, Gordon got sensational journalism'd by the press even in the Victorian era, but at least back then the idea of sex was still more of a thing between faithful couples and not just something everyone runs around doing for fun, which has had a statistical net negative impact on everything from marriage to disease rates today. Before the whole counterculture movement, you just didn't see that kind of apathetic do-whatever attitude you see so common now, and the way things are going old values are only gonna keep fading away in favor of hypersexualization and a general slide toward all the other shit propagated by the political left.