Post: #26

Are you looking for a male version of a "safe space" and easy access to pussy?

Post: #27

Only someone without daughters could propose this.

Post: #28

This idea and all associated "daughter threads" are ridiculous.

It's this nonsense that gives those who oppose this forum the ammunition they crave.

Post: #29

(06-16-2016 11:33 AM)cascadecombo Wrote:  You seem to be ignoring the fact that they were both essentially warring states for the most part.

If you are talking about China and Japan, I'd like to contest that.

Please list and make a sum of the periods in which those two countries can be considered warring states, and compare them to the length of their overall history, to demonstrate your statement.

After the unification of China by Quin Shi Huang and its subsequent consolidation by the establishment of the Han Dynasty, the kingdom is mostly peaceful, with occasional periods of chaos (like the Three Kingdoms period, or the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, etc.). The Tang Dynasty is the most peaceful and prosperous period in China history.

Similarly, after Tokugawa unified Japan, the country was mostly peaceful. Before the Warring States period, like in the Heian period and back, Japan was also mostly peaceful.

Post: #30

"The RVF community should become a polygynous tribe"

Where is this going exactly?

Not everyone from RVF buys in (I'm not interested in this polygyny deal either). Sure, we share relatively similar values (Roosh and Quintus attempt to sum it up with neomasculinity), but we're decentralized and have different interests (#NotAllRVF #specialsnowflakes ). Decentralized seems to be the current modus operandi. Remember how many meetups were planned in different cities back in February 2016? Do you see the tribal meeting set ups at http://tribalmeeting.co/? Talking to people off the forum gives you inside jokes and memes. We're a bunch of tribes, not taking orders from a central command, and just doing our own thing.

One can only remember so many people (the magic number is 150, and people like to cite anthropologist Robin Dunbar's work on the relationship between brain capacity and social networks) so well. How big is this community you're considering?

Check out the number of soldiers in a fighting group (fireteams, squad, platoons, etc). I've read that soldiers will fight for their battle buddies in their company (80-150 men), but beyond that number, that sentiment weakens. Hanging out with veterans who gushed about the men in their company and still wore their company patches to this day reinforced that point.

Before you decide to go all Genghis Khan and unify the Mongol tribes under one banner, consider that decentralized as a modus operandi isn't a bad way to go.

Post: #31

(06-16-2016 05:35 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  This idea and all associated "daughter threads" are ridiculous.

It's this nonsense that gives those who oppose this forum the ammunition they crave.

Looking at this thread and the master one, /thread-56391.html , I noticed two rough groups:

1) Those taking it as a joke - these guys usually have spent some time in the Game section.
2) Those taking it seriously - these guys are usually absent from the Game section.

As I posted in the master thread, and has been said elsewhere, some guys will do anything to avoid cold approaching.

Post: #32

(06-17-2016 05:26 AM)262 Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 05:35 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  This idea and all associated "daughter threads" are ridiculous.

It's this nonsense that gives those who oppose this forum the ammunition they crave.

Looking at this thread and the master one, /thread-56391.html , I noticed two rough groups:

1) Those taking it as a joke - these guys usually have spent some time in the Game section.
2) Those taking it seriously - these guys are usually absent from the Game section.

As I posted in the master thread, and has been said elsewhere, some guys will do anything to avoid cold approaching.

I'm a little confused: which guys will do anything to avoid cold approaching? Guys in the game forum? Guys who want to marry relatives of forum members?

I think it's safe to say that this topic is talked out.

Post: #33

Somehow I missed this post

(06-16-2016 02:42 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Polygyny is associated with tropical environments where resources are plentiful. And in these environments, men hardly do any work, while women do all the work.

Consequently, polygyny is NOT compatible with the self-improvement, civilization-protecting message that RVF is most proud to hold and promote.

With all due respect, this is just false, unless you were being sarcastic. There is no evidence that supports such views. Assuming that this is not sarcasm, it is armchair theorizing at its worst. There is no patriarchal society in which women do all or most of the work. Men holds power because they do most of the (hard) work. And living in tropical environment doesn't guarantee food security. Life was as tough for many of them as for people elsewhere, if not tougher.

Men from tropical environment, typically patriarchal societies like South East Asia worked very hard in the past and in the present. Much harder than women, and even those women probably also worked harder than Western women. Do you really think that those dudes from patriarchal Japan and China hardly did any work back then?






Your statements can amount to saying that men in tropical area are not masculine, self-reliant and hard-working. As a matter fact (and not of feeling), that's not true. I don't think you meant to say that, and I certainly hope not, but that's what your statements entail. Please think more carefully before you make such statements next time.

I have to agree that Asian women are strong, tough and hard-working though, especially Vietnamese women.





Back to the topic, I'm not arguing that polygyny is superior to monogamy. Just gently reminding that we gotta be more careful in dismissing polygyny (that doesn't have to have anything to do with RVF becoming a polygynous tribe). I myself am wondering why polygyny seems to create such trouble in the current Middle East whereas it seemed to work fine for pre-modern East Asians. It seems to me that polygyny itself is not the main problem. Maybe that's just my bias though, because in where I'm from (Vietnam), polygyny used to be common sense and it still leaves many trace in our language, in such a way the idea never sounds so outrageous to our ears as it is to Western ears.

Post: #34

So Kona has two sisters now?

Post: #35

Polygny is pretty normal in most societies and the (Christian) West seems to be something of an exception.

However, the idea that most men in those societies have more than one wife is clearly erroneous. More likely, it is just a few with more than one. That is still good though, as it makes the competition for wives that bit greater and means more women can get married.

A lack of women wanting to get married is clearly a big Western problem, and when they do couples seem to have issues maintaining a [b] happy [\b] marriage. Polygyny would probably solve this problem as, from what I have seen, people are likely to be happier in polygynious marriages, esp women.

Post: #36

(06-16-2016 04:35 PM)LeeEnfield303 Wrote:  Only someone without daughters could propose this.

I disagree. I think I might find a higher-quality husband for my daughter by expanding the pool of potential husbands to include those who are looking for a polygynous relationship. Because I hold these kinds of unorthodox views, I lost custody of the only daughter I currently have (see other thread), but I hope to have others in the future.

Post: #37

(06-17-2016 05:26 AM)262 Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 05:35 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  This idea and all associated "daughter threads" are ridiculous.

It's this nonsense that gives those who oppose this forum the ammunition they crave.

Looking at this thread and the master one, /thread-56391.html , I noticed two rough groups:

1) Those taking it as a joke - these guys usually have spent some time in the Game section.
2) Those taking it seriously - these guys are usually absent from the Game section.

As I posted in the master thread, and has been said elsewhere, some guys will do anything to avoid cold approaching.

Wow. And if you're trying to get with a marriage-worthy girl, you would have to spend, what, 5 years perfecting your game and shoot an average of 10,000 cold approaches to make that happen?

Maybe some guys would rather do other things with their lives? Maybe they'd prefer a more traditional (and more efficient) route to the goal?

[Father of two daughters speaking here]

Post: #38

If any of your daughters are attractive enough and encompass Trump values, I'll meet and maybe marry her.

Post: #39

(06-17-2016 05:26 AM)262 Wrote:  Looking at this thread and the master one, /thread-56391.html , I noticed two rough groups:

1) Those taking it as a joke - these guys usually have spent some time in the Game section.
2) Those taking it seriously - these guys are usually absent from the Game section.

As I posted in the master thread, and has been said elsewhere, some guys will do anything to avoid cold approaching.

For those who are interested in a polygynous relationship, cold approaching random women is probably not going to be the most efficient way to find chicks who will be open to it. It would be better to look within a community of men who accept polygyny and will support their daughters' entering into a polygynous relationship.

Also, polygynous cultures tend to support women's getting married at a young age. Maybe it's because, like polygyny, marrying off girls at a young age is a traditional practice geared toward maximizing reproductive potential; or maybe it's because polygynous families tend to have a lot of mouths to feed, and need to get rid of the surplus girls whose numbers exceed what is needed to care of the family's cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc. needs. Either way, there's going to be a very limited amount of time between when these girls hit puberty and when they're taken off the market, so if you already have a connection to the family, you're in an advantageous position to be the one ready to grab those fresh-baked cookies out of the oven right when the bell rings "done".

Traditional polygynous cultures also tend to shelter their unmarried girls, requiring them be accompanied in public places with a family member who can cockblock anyone trying a cold approach. They want to ensure that people courting their daughters share the same beliefs as the rest of the tribe, so that their children will be raised in those beliefs. So they restrict their daughter to dating people in their tribe, whom they already know. Personally, I would want my daughter to marry someone with some Red Pill awareness so that he can share those ideas with his sons and daughters, rather than leaving them to be influenced into buying into destructive feminist-influenced ideas by default. I don't want my grandsons to become beta cucks and my granddaughters to become neurotic 30-something spinsters or divorcees.

Most ideas for radical change sound ridiculous at first. When the new idea meets with opposition instead of laughter, then we know that it's progressed to the next phase, eventually perhaps leading to acceptance.

Post: #40

(06-25-2016 01:12 PM)RaymondKertezc Wrote:  Most ideas for radical change sound ridiculous at first. When the new idea meets with opposition instead of laughter, then we know that it's progressed to the next phase, eventually perhaps leading to acceptance.

Sometimes ridiculous ideas are also just ridiculous.

For instance: if I say "we should eat socks", that's not progressive, that's not going to be 'accepted'. That's just dumb.

Polygyny creates blood thirst. Simple as that. The global birth ratio is 107 men for 100 women. So there's already 7 men going without a wife. Now you add on polygyny. To illustrate: now the top 25 men are getting the 100 women. So you've got 82 men who aren't going to reproduce by decision of the women. What is there best chance to reproduce? It's to rape as many of the wives as possible, and murder as many of the upper class males as possible. The upper class males know this -- so they send them off into bloody, rapey wars with neighbors, so they kill and rape the neighbors instead.

This is part of the reason mistresses are frowned upon and kept hush hush. There must at the very least be the illusion of one man one woman marriages as the norm, to keep the peace.

Post: #41

(06-25-2016 01:12 PM)RaymondKertezc Wrote:  Traditional polygynous cultures also tend to shelter their unmarried girls, requiring them be accompanied in public places with a family member who can cockblock anyone trying a cold approach.

This forum might not be for you.

Post: #42

(06-16-2016 02:42 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Polygyny is associated with tropical environments where resources are plentiful. And in these environments, men hardly do any work, while women do all the work.

Consequently, polygyny is NOT compatible with the self-improvement, civilization-protecting message that RVF is most proud to hold and promote.

I'd rather be a lazy lion letting the hoes do all the work than a hard working beta male. Granted I do provide but it's a conditional kind of thing. It's not good to not be generous with people.

Post: #43

(06-25-2016 01:42 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Polygyny creates blood thirst. Simple as that. The global birth ratio is 107 men for 100 women. So there's already 7 men going without a wife. Now you add on polygyny. To illustrate: now the top 25 men are getting the 100 women. So you've got 82 men who aren't going to reproduce by decision of the women. What is there best chance to reproduce? It's to rape as many of the wives as possible, and murder as many of the upper class males as possible. The upper class males know this -- so they send them off into bloody, rapey wars with neighbors, so they kill and rape the neighbors instead.

This is part of the reason mistresses are frowned upon and kept hush hush. There must at the very least be the illusion of one man one woman marriages as the norm, to keep the peace.

First of all, we have to define polygyny. It could mean:

(1) Simultaneous legal marriage of a man to more than one woman at a time; or

(2) A man having an ongoing sexual relationship with more than one woman at a time (a "hard harem"), possibly while legally married to one woman.

In either case, the assumption is that any given woman will be exclusive with one man.

In our society, we don't have (1) but (2) is fairly commonplace. But more significantly, we also have an incredible number of "free agent" women who have all kinds of hookups without being committed to any one man. This is the real problem.

There needs to be a certain percentage of "free agent" women -- maybe 10-15% -- so the lower status men can still get sex from time to time. But when that percentage gets to 30%, 40% or more, then we have a real problem with the destruction of the family unit.

So I would say 10-15% free agents, maybe 80% of women in monogamous marriages, and then a small number of women available to be second wives for the top guys would be about the right mix.

Post: #44

I'm going to echo Phoenix here, this is a silly idea.

"I disagree. I think I might find a higher-quality husband for my daughter by expanding the pool of potential husbands to include those who are looking for a polygynous relationship. Because I hold these kinds of unorthodox views, I lost custody of the only daughter I currently have..."

Yeah, that sounds about right. How did that conversation with the judge go, anyway?

Post: #45

Actually, I thought about this for a while, and I'm totally down with it. In fact, I volunteer to be the very first example of a RvF polygynous relationship.

So who wants to let me at their daughter?
Does anybody want to let me bang their daughter as part of a non-exclusive relationship? Since it's "polygynous" there's no need to worry that I might already be in a relationship with someone else. I will happily screw all of your daughters, preferably at once as part of some kind of crazy Arabian harem fetish thing.

I'm "red pill", so you can totally trust me with them. 100% totally, rock-solid reliable. Look, I've even got rep points, which means I'm sure to be a top-quality catch!

Send PMs by clicking on my name to the left, and let's get this polygynous party started!

Post: #46

(06-29-2016 11:53 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Actually, I thought about this for a while, and I'm totally down with it. In fact, I volunteer to be the very first example of a RvF polygynous relationship.

So who wants to let me at their daughter?
Does anybody want to let me bang their daughter as part of a non-exclusive relationship? Since it's "polygynous" there's no need to worry that I might already be in a relationship with someone else. I will happily screw all of your daughters, preferably at once as part of some kind of crazy Arabian harem fetish thing.

I'm "red pill", so you can totally trust me with them. 100% totally, rock-solid reliable. Look, I've even got rep points, which means I'm sure to be a top-quality catch!

Send PMs by clicking on my name to the left, and let's get this polygynous party started!

The question isn't whether you'll happily screw them, it's whether you will commit to supporting them for life (along with any kids you have with them until the kids turn 18).

Post: #47

"The question isn't whether you'll happily screw them, it's whether you will commit to supporting them for life (along with any kids you have with them until the kids turn 18)."

Absolutely. 100%. You can trust me to take care of your daughters because I am a valued and trusted member of this online, anonymous message board.

Now make with the free pussy.

Post: #48

(06-17-2016 11:22 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  Somehow I missed this post

(06-16-2016 02:42 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Polygyny is associated with tropical environments where resources are plentiful. And in these environments, men hardly do any work, while women do all the work.

Consequently, polygyny is NOT compatible with the self-improvement, civilization-protecting message that RVF is most proud to hold and promote.

With all due respect, this is just false, unless you were being sarcastic. There is no evidence that supports such views. Assuming that this is not sarcasm, it is armchair theorizing at its worst. There is no patriarchal society in which women do all or most of the work. Men holds power because they do most of the (hard) work. And living in tropical environment doesn't guarantee food security. Life was as tough for many of them as for people elsewhere, if not tougher.

Men from tropical environment, typically patriarchal societies like South East Asia worked very hard in the past and in the present. Much harder than women, and even those women probably also worked harder than Western women. Do you really think that those dudes from patriarchal Japan and China hardly did any work back then?






Your statements can amount to saying that men in tropical area are not masculine, self-reliant and hard-working. As a matter fact (and not of feeling), that's not true. I don't think you meant to say that, and I certainly hope not, but that's what your statements entail. Please think more carefully before you make such statements next time.

I have to agree that Asian women are strong, tough and hard-working though, especially Vietnamese women.





Back to the topic, I'm not arguing that polygyny is superior to monogamy. Just gently reminding that we gotta be more careful in dismissing polygyny (that doesn't have to have anything to do with RVF becoming a polygynous tribe). I myself am wondering why polygyny seems to create such trouble in the current Middle East whereas it seemed to work fine for pre-modern East Asians. It seems to me that polygyny itself is not the main problem. Maybe that's just my bias though, because in where I'm from (Vietnam), polygyny used to be common sense and it still leaves many trace in our language, in such a way the idea never sounds so outrageous to our ears as it is to Western ears.

MMX2010's post is accurate for big parts of polygamous Africa.

Post: #49

All the people that say "you should do x, y, z..." in society are trying to manipulate you either out of projection or trying to achieve their own agenda.

Anytime someone starts telling me "you should do x..." I become very skeptical. I consider it emotional abuse.

EDIT:

Also, I'm waiting for Samseau, Libertas, and Quintus to come in here and point out that western civilization was so successful because of monogamous marriages. Polygamy sounds great in theory, but it doesn't work on a societal level (see: holdout mormon polygamy cults and Saudia Arabia).

I would say it doesn't work out on an individual level either. Children from a polygamous family will never be as well developed as children from monogamous families. There is only so much time in a day and dealing with one woman and raising your 3 children would be draining enough. Dealing with multiple wives, their infighting, and raising all of the 3+ children? No way. This discussion is basically a debate between r vs. k reproductive strategies (r= South America, Africa, Middle East, India, etc.; k = Europe, Japan, etc.)

Recently, I was personally curious about polygamous marriages, so I looked into it (mormon polygamy). I was not impressed with what I found.

Post: #50

Well, the more women you can get the more you can deprive your enemies (in this case the liberals).

Polygamy would be the best way to get your genes and your beliefs passed on and in a better position to succeed. This would be the best way for a 'tribe' to grow and marginalise its enemies.

Given the current state of cultural degeneracy in the West and the level of unhappiness of women, it's now simply a case of he who dares wins.

One does not need money or good looks or even advanced game. It's just a case of acting on opportunity.

I can think of few things more beta than the idea that a man can only have one wife.