What took them so long?

[RepresentingCaution]

Seriously, I've been waiting for this to drop for over a decade:

 

[TASTYLEADPAINT]

What..... did I just watch

 

[Kenjona]

Funny to say, I have heard of and seen more Polyandry relationships; or semi-polyandry. Then I have polygamy, outside of religiously enforced polygamy. But most Polyandry few, I have known were a bit subtle in how they presented their relationship to the outside world. Whether they are V's or a true mixed grouping.

Either way, awesome.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

Seriously, I've been waiting for this to drop for over a decade:

shoulda just stuck with Sister Wives. Now THAT was quality entertainment. THAT was world-changing. Something to aspire to.

The fuck am i gonna do with a brother husband? i mean i guess i can actually have someone help me when doing outside work or hold doors in place while i put the screws into the hinges....and help me afford that cool epoxy pool table that looks like a mountain range i saw for sale.... hm.

But then what would i need a wife for? sex? i can just fuck my bro. Children? I can adopt. House cleaning? I take care of that already.

....the fuck, the homosexuals are onto something....

 

[RavenRunes]

Not to bring you down or anything but if everybody's fucking their bro, where are the children eventually going to come from to adopt.....

 

[Fox-Trot-9]

To offset the declining birth rate of the US, it's now permissible to have two men for every one woman in marriage. Gotta catch up with China and India, so the US won't get overrun one day.

 

[ZukoMee]

To offset the declining birth rate of the US, it's now permissible to have two men for every one woman in marriage. Gotta catch up with China and India, so the US won't get overrun one day.

This doesn't make any sense. If combatting declining birth rates was the goal, then it would make more sense to have 2 wives per 1 husband to increase potential births.

 

[Fox-Trot-9]

This doesn't make any sense. If combatting declining birth rates was the goal, then it would make more sense to have 2 wives per 1 husband to increase potential births.

My comment was a sarcastic response to the OP's vid. In reality, yes, the 2-wives-per-1-husband idea would make more sense in countries where females outnumber males like in Russia or the US, but the 2-husbands-per-1-wife idea would make more sense in countries where males outnumber females like in China and India and Saudi Arabia. In short, it depends, since the male-to-female distribution varies from country to country.

 

[ZukoMee]

My comment was a sarcastic response to the OP's vid. In reality, yes, the 2-wives-per-1-husband idea would make more sense in countries where females outnumber males like in Russia or the US, but the 2-husbands-per-1-wife idea would make more sense in countries where males outnumber females like in China and India and Saudi Arabia. In short, it depends, since the male-to-female distribution varies from country to country.

I don't really get why it would make more sense in countries with more males either. It still wouldn't increase the amount of births. The woman would only be able to impregnated once at a time, so again, if it's about combatting declining births, then two men per single women will never make sense. Instead of two men essentially taking turns to impregnate one single woman, the same man realistically, would just impregnate her again rather than invite a second man to do the next one.

The only way this would make sense is if you were talking about expanding a gene pool, but then it would only expand the paternal line, and not the maternal which would only halfway solve a gene pool issue.

 

[RepresentingCaution]

I don't really get why it would make more sense in countries with more males either. It still wouldn't increase the amount of births. The woman would only be able to impregnated once at a time, so again, if it's about combatting declining births, then two men per single women will never make sense. Instead of two men essentially taking turns to impregnate one single woman, the same man realistically, would just impregnate her again rather than invite a second man to do the next one.

The only way this would make sense is if you were talking about expanding a gene pool, but then it would only expand the paternal line, and not the maternal which would only halfway solve a gene pool issue.

It's about improving the quality of life for the offspring by providing them with more resources. Humans breed for quality, not quantity. That's why most of us only have one per litter. Other species have dozens or even hundreds per year, and most of those babies get eaten because the parents just leave them to fend for themselves.

I've had one litter of one, and I'm on the fence about having another because it takes a lot of time and energy to care for the one I already have.

 

[Fox-Trot-9]

I don't really get why it would make more sense in countries with more males either. It still wouldn't increase the amount of births. The woman would only be able to impregnated once at a time, so again, if it's about combatting declining births, then two men per single women will never make sense. Instead of two men essentially taking turns to impregnate one single woman, the same man realistically, would just impregnate her again rather than invite a second man to do the next one.

The only way this would make sense is if you were talking about expanding a gene pool, but then it would only expand the paternal line, and not the maternal which would only halfway solve a gene pool issue.

It would make sense if the original male partner became sterile, so there would be a need for another male to fill in the role of a body father. The average birth rate of the world has been steadily declining since the 1960s. Sperm count concentrations among males on average have dropped since the 1970s by over 50% from 99 million sperm per ml in 1972 to 47 million sperm per ml in 2011. By 2021, average sperm count concentrations among males have been estimated to be below 40 million sperm per ml. Below 40 million sperm per ml is the threshold where conception becomes difficult. I'm getting these numbers from the vid below, which I watched a week ago.

Case in point, this article snippet that I pulled from an NSFW thread in a discord server I'm on earlier today:

Anyway, not all males have sperm concentrations that low, b/c the distribution of sperm concentrations vary individually across males. Because of this, though, having 2 males per 1 woman to offset declining fertility rates among males would make sense.

 

[ZukoMee]

It's about improving the quality of life for the offspring by providing them with more resources. Humans breed for quality, not quantity. That's why most of us only have one per litter. Other species have dozens or even hundreds per year, and most of those babies get eaten because the parents just leave them to fend for themselves.

I've had one litter of one, and I'm on the fence about having another because it takes a lot of time and energy to care for the one I already have.

This still encourages 2 woman/1 man if you're worried about "litters." And 2 men and 1 women does not express higher quality, just seems like another example of quantity to me. I am likely biased I suppose, but recognize that you are too if any of your prior posts is anything to go by.

It would make sense if the original male partner became sterile, so there would be a need for another male to fill in the role of a body father. The average birth rate of the world has been steadily declining since the 1960s. Sperm count concentrations among males on average have dropped since the 1970s by over 50% from 99 million sperm per ml in 1972 to 47 million sperm per ml in 2011. By 2021, average sperm count concentrations among males have been estimated to be below 40 million sperm per ml. Below 40 million sperm per ml is the threshold where conception becomes difficult. I'm getting these numbers from the vid below, which I watched a week ago.

Case in point, this article snippet that I pulled from an NSFW thread in a discord server I'm on earlier today:

Anyway, not all males have sperm concentrations that low, b/c the distribution of sperm concentrations vary individually across males. Because of this, though, having 2 males per 1 woman to offset declining fertility rates among males would make sense.

This article just doesn't seem true. Seems more like protection was being used to extend the "service." I can't prove that, but neither can it be proved I'm wrong. News media lies or omits information knowingly all of the time. It's amusing and telling of my suspicions that she was a former beauty queen which makes this article seem all the more hollow and untrue. And while sperm count has dropped, it hasn't dropped to the point that men simply can't get a woman pregnant. A few weeks of effort daily and it happens unless the man has a fertility issue which adds another dynamic to this. Adding another man just seems like some weird fetish, though I admit 2 women/1 man likely seems the same.

It still can't be proven. And the article you picked is one of the worst ones to prove your point.

 

[Fox-Trot-9]

This still encourages 2 woman/1 man if you're worried about "litters." And 2 men and 1 women does not express higher quality, just seems like another example of quantity to me. I am likely biased I suppose, but recognize that you are too if any of your prior posts is anything to go by.



This article just doesn't seem true. Seems more like protection was being used to extend the "service." I can't prove that, but neither can it be proved I'm wrong. News media lies or omits information knowingly all of the time. It's amusing and telling of my suspicions that she was a former beauty queen which makes this article seem all the more hollow and untrue. And while sperm count has dropped, it hasn't dropped to the point that men simply can't get a woman pregnant. A few weeks of effort daily and it happens unless the man has a fertility issue which adds another dynamic to this. Adding another man just seems like some weird fetish, though I admit 2 women/1 man likely seems the same.

It still can't be proven. And the article you picked is one of the worst ones to prove your point.

Okay, whatever. Think whatever you want then.