r/polyamory

Only, historically, that's the only way any of this has ever, ever worked. No culture on earth, save maybe some tiny African tribe with a huge male death rate, has practiced polyandry. That isn't a coincidence.
And asians* used to have such households irl anyway.

*atleast Mongol and Chinese, I think
 
I brought it up earlier in this thread, but I really wonder if harem anime has poisoned some people's perception of relationships.
i doubt it
i can see ecchi and hentai turning dudes into lecherous perverts, but as far as the portrayal of actual relationships go, anime overall is probably more healthy and normal than contemporary western media lol
(disclaimer: i dont actually know much about anime, this is just the impression i get from what little i am occasionally exposed to via second hand mentions from the weebs i associate with)
 
Polygamy doesn't work because it means you end up with a lot of unmarried young men.

Look up the ”lost boys” in fundamentalist Mormonism.
works when your society is belligerent enough to wage perpetual wars that constantly grind away the surplus men (they either die in battle or achieve victory and take slave-wives from the conquered enemy)

it's not suited for prolonged times of peace though cause then you indeed end up with a bunch of surplus men who have no wife, no family, no future
 
works when your society is belligerent enough to wage perpetual wars that constantly grind away the surplus men
Which was basically one of the reasons why the idea of polygamy was made up by Joseph Smith revealed to him after he looked at magical rocks in a hat.

Mormonism was mainly practiced by white settlers on the frontier who would naturally have come into contact with Indians, and the Mormons wanted a theocratic state in territory the US claimed which would have brought them into conflict with the US. I'd be very surprised if Brigham Young envisioned anything other than perpetual war with the ”gentiles” for Deseret.
 
Only, historically, that's the only way any of this has ever, ever worked. No culture on earth, save maybe some tiny African tribe with a huge male death rate, has practiced polyandry. That isn't a coincidence.
A lot of the times that worked only because the men would die in war and then their widow would need someone to look after them, so they'd marry their husbands brother or something similar.

It doesn't work in other situations because it leads to a lot of young, frustrated men which is never good for a society.
 
Only, historically, that's the only way any of this has ever, ever worked. No culture on earth, save maybe some tiny African tribe with a huge male death rate, has practiced polyandry. That isn't a coincidence.
Think it is literally the opposite. Women were in short quantity and needed to be shared. Think it is somewhere in Nepal this is practiced, where brothers marry one woman. It is a successful strategy when you think about it. She gets the resources of two males. The males know either way, she is carrying on their genetic legacy. Either the kid is a nephew/niece or son/daughter. Not excusing it, but looking at it that way, it makes as much sense as men trying to fuck as many women as possible.
 
Think it is literally the opposite. Women were in short quantity and needed to be shared. Think it is somewhere in Nepal this is practiced, where brothers marry one woman. It is a successful strategy when you think about it. She gets the resources of two males. The males know either way, she is carrying on their genetic legacy. Either the kid is a nephew/niece or son/daughter. Not excusing it, but looking at it that way, it makes as much sense as men trying to fuck as many women as possible.

why would that situation (tons of surplus men, not enough women to go around) arise in the first place though if they aren't practicing polygyny?
the opposite situation (lack of men) happens easily, almost naturally, cause men get themselves killed off in large numbers by waging war on rival tribes or nations. women don't do that though, so how would a lack of women arise? large scale sex-selective infanticide/abortion maybe?
 
why would that situation (tons of surplus men, not enough women to go around) arise in the first place though if they aren't practicing polygyny?
the opposite situation (lack of men) happens easily, almost naturally, cause men get themselves killed off in large numbers by waging war on rival tribes or nations. women don't do that though, so how would a lack of women arise? large scale sex-selective infanticide/abortion maybe?
Dunno, but you can run down the rabbit hole here https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/
 
why would that situation (tons of surplus men, not enough women to go around) arise in the first place though if they aren't practicing polygyny?
the opposite situation (lack of men) happens easily, almost naturally, cause men get themselves killed off in large numbers by waging war on rival tribes or nations. women don't do that though, so how would a lack of women arise? large scale sex-selective infanticide/abortion maybe?

IIRC, it's about preventing the fracturing of farms between brothers during inheritance in a tremendously mountainous region where fertile land is scarce and precious.
 
The marriage system was supposedly to combat low birth rates
You know what else was meant to combat low birth rates in a fictional version of Japan?
Think it is literally the opposite. Women were in short quantity and needed to be shared. Think it is somewhere in Nepal this is practiced, where brothers marry one woman. It is a successful strategy when you think about it. She gets the resources of two males. The males know either way, she is carrying on their genetic legacy. Either the kid is a nephew/niece or son/daughter. Not excusing it, but looking at it that way, it makes as much sense as men trying to fuck as many women as possible.
You are correct that it's Nepal
 
You know what else was meant to combat low birth rates in a fictional version of Japan?

You are correct that it's Nepal
Is that what the background of that series was? I need to read the manga again soon. The art was really good, and more in depth with the characters than the movie was. Another manga that reminds me of that (can't remember the name, darnit) involves the entire population of japan getting vaccinations as children. 1 in every million or so is a slow acting poison that kills you as a young adult. No one knows who got a fatal dose. It's supposedly to instill a sense of "living life to the fullest because you might die before 20." Not combating population decline, but also raises a lot of existential questions. Anywho.

I've heard about that example in Nepal. That seems a bit more tolerable. Like they said, it's practical. I may be wrong, but from what I've watched it seems like they're much more "equal" in terms of tasks and responsibilities within the family. Regardless of the gender makeup, relationships where one partner (often male) holds sole authority is dumb imo. That sort of thing can and does happen in monogamous couples, but it's practically the norm in typical polygamous marriages.
 
Is that what the background of that series was?
iirc the reasoning behind "The Program" is a little different depending on which version of the story you're looking at (anime, manga, novel, etc.) but the core of it is always that the people ruling the country saw the need to instill fear and obedience in the youth because they believed children had lost respect for life- running rampant, doing crimes, and not having children of their own.
 
7C566416-0E4B-425A-B9AD-CBDA65CCFC1B.jpeg

Hey remember the troon with the big poly partner chart? Wellppp
 
Back