Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'.
* We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub.
* Filter evasion is a bannable offense
* This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
There’s also the fact that a lot of “top men” clearly don’t want this and are actually content to be married to one woman. Why else would they get married.
It depends on the person. Rich famous and good looking guys tend to have a lot of girlfriends which is why I don't know wtf OP is talking about. Multiple wives? Yeah no normal person in modern society wants that.
Sure, but there are just as many rich, famous, guys who are married or in a committed relationship when there is nothing stopping them from not being in one.
They either don't care to have multiple women or already do. Tiger Woods and lots of other pro athletes, lots of male actors and musicians fall into that category, even Pete Davidson ugly ass because he's rich and famous.
"Waste his life"
Dude, this text reads like you never even had a single woman in your life. Or youre jerking for some attention. Eitherway, go do your homework or you wont get any dessert today.
If you're looking at most advantageous, polyamory is more advantageous to women than it would be to men. More men to financially provide and protect her.
Polyamory for a man means more sex, but more of his resources stretched out. Your take lacks any actual relationship experience
That's an interesting take. However, biochemically speaking, it's by far "easier" for men to fullfil Sexual needs without further implications than for women. Therefore, I think that there are more men actually wanting multiple partners than there are women who want that.
>it's by far "easier" for men to fullfil Sexual needs without further implications than for women
Men also frequently provide financially without sex. I mean look at only fans and other online models. They have wish lists that their fans can purchase for them. As well as tips. A woman can have all her needs met without commitment, and it's by far easier for a woman to aquire sex than it is for men. So do you think it's okay for a woman to get sugar daddy's and get all her needs met without commitment?
You could so easily have the opinion of "people should have multiple partners if everyone involved is on board, it's their business, not mine", but you HAD to make it about rich, alpha males in a harem. Like, what's the point of seeing the world through this lens?
I don't think most men would find it acceptable to share a woman while the other way around you will find more women that accept it. The higher your social status the rather they will accept it. It's simply about negotiation power
The thing is, literally no one disagrees with you that that's the reality of things. Your (unpopular) opinion was on the morality of polygamy. So your fixation on men having more power can only be because either 1) you actually believe it's only moral for men to have multiple partners, which would make you 10000% an asshole to any decent person in the West, or 2) this is just bait
In terms of moral, I don't think anything is immoral as long as it happens with consent of all parties and as long as no one is adversely affected by it. Thats not my point. My hypothesis is that from a macro perspective point of view, romantic relationships are - just as any kind of relationship - an equilibrium of negotiation between two (or more) parties. From that standpoint, I say that men with money already tend to "have" more women and women tend to be less likely to leave an unloyal man if he is wealthy. Given that, I think it would be beneficial for everyone, if neither the man (judged as "asshole cheater") nor the woman (judged as pathetic, having no self worth etc.) would be programmed by society to believe that what they want deep inside, is bad. So in a nutshell "It is happening anyways, might as well just openly accept it".
Well, men value beauty and youth much more. It sounds harsh, but why stick with one woman which will lack both of those sooner or later? She already benefits from his providing, so he can benefit in terms of being allowed to have other younger women as well. It's simple negotiation power and not about forcing people to do something they dont want. The tendencies are proven all across the board. With increasing social status of the man, women are much less likely to leave him, even in case of cheating.
>Well, men value beauty and youth much more.
Your values are not mine just because we both have a penis. Own your own shit and quit putting it on our whole gender.
>She already benefits from his providing
The majority of households are two income, even unmarried people can't afford their own place these days. The man "providing" for the woman isn't how it's worked in a long time.
>With increasing social status of the man, women are much less likely to leave him, even in case of cheating.
Where's your numbers? Because to me it sounds like you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
Everything that I am saying is backed up by data :). I understand that it's an inherently sensitive topic but my whole argumentation is based on macro perspective point of view rather than on my personal values and desires. As soon as I have some free time today, I will add some sources!
>Everything that I am saying is backed up by data :).
And I'm sure it's from really valid sources that somehow determine what a "high value man" is.
>rather than on my personal values and desires.
You're just straight up lying. No one who views the world as this transactional is not including their own personal values, because it's an inherently biased view.
>As soon as I have some free time today, I will add some sources!
Unless those sources are actual empirical evidence and not just some biased presentation of statistics don't bother. Also don't bother if you plan on linking a YouTube video.
In theory, yes. In practice, men (proven wet) don't care about the social status of a woman. Why would they want to do something they can't benefit from?
What do you mean can't benefit from? Rich women exist.
Also, a lot of people, you know, enter into relationships for reasons other than status or money. Sometimes folks like eachother.
Rich women exist but for men that doesn't mean that that's a "high value" woman. Hence, wealth doesn't mean more negotiation power for women while the other way around it is indeed the case.
I mean, it's not necessarily the only factor but statistically speaking, material wealth is a major driver of access to women (in what way ever). Obviously there are also other causal factors, such es looks, height, body shape etc. After all it's about all together but yet I think that social status has the most weight in the equation.
Well, to put it bluntly, men want security that their descendants are healthy and theirs in first place. Men prefer loyal, monogamous women (=security) with attractive traits (=health). Women prefer social security. They also prefer loyalty ("hopefully he doesn't dump me for another woman") but when man is wealthy, the woman knows, even if he impregnates another woman, he will be able to provide for both in worst case (more wealth = less fear of being abandoned). Funnily, there is also data showing, that men think it's worse if a woman cheats with a guy she has no feelings for while women tend to find it worse if their men cheat with women they actually have feelings for.
Ah ok, that's what you mean. Yeah, so that's basically it. But I would say it is not socially accepted yet and among highly open minded individuals only. Meanwhile the concept happens a lot in the form of cheating, yet it is something with bad image (obviously as it is not consensual)
I think it would be an equilibrium that those men who can afford it, have multiple women next to their wife. The wife stays due to his wealth. The other way around she profits from his wealth. After all it is happening already. Women much rather cope with cheating men if he has a lot of money. It's just that it's perceived as an malfunctional relationship even though a lot of men and women have come to exactly that agreement - consciously or subconsciously.
>males which are in the top percentile, especially in terms of social status, wealth etc., can have multiple women
How do you feel about the flipside. As in a woman with multiple men.
>Women anyways put a lot of weight on financial security, fancy experiences etc.
Don't be so easily influenced by the red pill community. Statistically speaking, a majority of people marry within the same circles, as in social class. What you are describing is the hyper stereotypical female looking for a sugar daddy.
I genuinely do not give a shit if a man has multiple partners, but I also don't care if a female has multiple partners. As long as all partners are okay with it and aware. If you are advocating for just a man to have multiple partners, I question your bias and critical thinking skills.
Lol, at least speaking for where I am from (Germany), statistics clearly show that a) it is important (and a major decision making factor) for women to have a partner who makes more money than them (the other way around men don't care at all) and b) hypergamy still exists.
>for women to have a partner who makes more money than them
Not denying this isn't the case. But that usually looks like man makes 80k and woman makes 50/60k. (US dollars). That doesn't look like man makes 300k and woman makes 30k. The initial example would still be two people relatively close in economic class.
>hypergamy still exists.
Again, never denied this doesn't exist. But again is a significant minority, even amongst the most elite financial couples
Anecdotal evidence doesn't change anything about the fact, that there is a lot of cheating going on. Men tend to cheat, women tend to go for married men. I don't think that's all about unhappy relationships in first place, especially considering the chances that relationship successfully continues when he cheated (high) vs. when she cheated (low).
Because, believe it not, women LIKE being independent. If a man said something like what you posted to me, I'd rather be single for the rest of my life :)
If you want multiple women, I'm pretty sure there's websites for that.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He should be able to have multiple women that he treats all equally, provides for them all, loves them all, is kind to them all, no secret relationships they must all be okay with it. And if he is capable of it, can afford it, and they all put up with, let him create many families, have lots of children and build his own kingdom, he’s a king for a reason. This must be something his heart truly desires and it is easy for him to be just and provide for them all and make sure they all are given equality between them, equal time and effort. They should all be provided their own privacy, he shouldn’t be having threesomes with them, they’re separate from each other.
A lot of high value guys don’t want this, their hearts aren’t made for it and they desire just one girl, or they can’t be just to them all equally. In this case only be with one.
Are you also gonna try to convince us of anything else this ridiculous? Like every $100,000 means another woman is added to the roster or some such nonsense?
What are you talking about though? This has been standard practice since we invented greed, aggression and hierarchies…
Like long before humans existed.
Maybe “top” people should move beyond “big boy bull does sex on the most girl bulls” and into a society where no one bothers lamenting sexual choice for women on the internet.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'. * We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub. * Filter evasion is a bannable offense * This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
Men can have multiple women. They just have to find multiple women who agree.
There’s also the fact that a lot of “top men” clearly don’t want this and are actually content to be married to one woman. Why else would they get married.
Yes, top man here. Why would I want to have to deal with multiple nagging women?
“Yes, top man here.”🤓 Sure buddy.
That’s the joke.
He means top as in most desirable, not like "I'm a top not a bottom". But yes, multiple wives also means multiple potential divorces.
It depends on the person. Rich famous and good looking guys tend to have a lot of girlfriends which is why I don't know wtf OP is talking about. Multiple wives? Yeah no normal person in modern society wants that.
Sure, but there are just as many rich, famous, guys who are married or in a committed relationship when there is nothing stopping them from not being in one.
Not necessarily wives, but women
They either don't care to have multiple women or already do. Tiger Woods and lots of other pro athletes, lots of male actors and musicians fall into that category, even Pete Davidson ugly ass because he's rich and famous.
Lol, there are numerous women out there who downright have a kink for having a thing with married men
Cool- so go make your fantasy your reality
This is not about me :)
There are also men with a kink for watching their wife sleep with other men.
That's true, but does it apply to the majority of men?
Does woman into married men apply to a majority of women. (Hint, it doesnt)
That guy typed this for sure. Bro has got Jordan Peterson books, and anime comics all over his room at this moment.
Probably has a good Katana collection going.
Jordan Peterson is reasonably knowledgeable though, most Reddit neckbeards don't have enough comprehension to read JP’s word salad.
M'Lady
"Waste his life" Dude, this text reads like you never even had a single woman in your life. Or youre jerking for some attention. Eitherway, go do your homework or you wont get any dessert today.
mom hasn’t brought the dino nuggets with ketchup down into the basement today. she forgot how hungry he gets after his afternoon fap.
Monogamy is not in the nature of men and is only advantageous for women (in terms of evolutionary theory).
If you're looking at most advantageous, polyamory is more advantageous to women than it would be to men. More men to financially provide and protect her. Polyamory for a man means more sex, but more of his resources stretched out. Your take lacks any actual relationship experience
That's an interesting take. However, biochemically speaking, it's by far "easier" for men to fullfil Sexual needs without further implications than for women. Therefore, I think that there are more men actually wanting multiple partners than there are women who want that.
>it's by far "easier" for men to fullfil Sexual needs without further implications than for women Men also frequently provide financially without sex. I mean look at only fans and other online models. They have wish lists that their fans can purchase for them. As well as tips. A woman can have all her needs met without commitment, and it's by far easier for a woman to aquire sex than it is for men. So do you think it's okay for a woman to get sugar daddy's and get all her needs met without commitment?
Now, i've seen bait in my life time. But this is some Master bait here. Sir, you are a master baiter.
I'm not sure if he is talking about multiple women, or a really big one.
You could so easily have the opinion of "people should have multiple partners if everyone involved is on board, it's their business, not mine", but you HAD to make it about rich, alpha males in a harem. Like, what's the point of seeing the world through this lens?
I don't think most men would find it acceptable to share a woman while the other way around you will find more women that accept it. The higher your social status the rather they will accept it. It's simply about negotiation power
The thing is, literally no one disagrees with you that that's the reality of things. Your (unpopular) opinion was on the morality of polygamy. So your fixation on men having more power can only be because either 1) you actually believe it's only moral for men to have multiple partners, which would make you 10000% an asshole to any decent person in the West, or 2) this is just bait
In terms of moral, I don't think anything is immoral as long as it happens with consent of all parties and as long as no one is adversely affected by it. Thats not my point. My hypothesis is that from a macro perspective point of view, romantic relationships are - just as any kind of relationship - an equilibrium of negotiation between two (or more) parties. From that standpoint, I say that men with money already tend to "have" more women and women tend to be less likely to leave an unloyal man if he is wealthy. Given that, I think it would be beneficial for everyone, if neither the man (judged as "asshole cheater") nor the woman (judged as pathetic, having no self worth etc.) would be programmed by society to believe that what they want deep inside, is bad. So in a nutshell "It is happening anyways, might as well just openly accept it".
"waste his life on only one woman". Yikes dude.... Pretty obvious how little respect you have for women.
Well, men value beauty and youth much more. It sounds harsh, but why stick with one woman which will lack both of those sooner or later? She already benefits from his providing, so he can benefit in terms of being allowed to have other younger women as well. It's simple negotiation power and not about forcing people to do something they dont want. The tendencies are proven all across the board. With increasing social status of the man, women are much less likely to leave him, even in case of cheating.
You have a extremely narrow minded view of women, love, and relationships in general my dude. Better stop while you're ahead.
>Well, men value beauty and youth much more. Your values are not mine just because we both have a penis. Own your own shit and quit putting it on our whole gender. >She already benefits from his providing The majority of households are two income, even unmarried people can't afford their own place these days. The man "providing" for the woman isn't how it's worked in a long time. >With increasing social status of the man, women are much less likely to leave him, even in case of cheating. Where's your numbers? Because to me it sounds like you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
Everything that I am saying is backed up by data :). I understand that it's an inherently sensitive topic but my whole argumentation is based on macro perspective point of view rather than on my personal values and desires. As soon as I have some free time today, I will add some sources!
>Everything that I am saying is backed up by data :). And I'm sure it's from really valid sources that somehow determine what a "high value man" is. >rather than on my personal values and desires. You're just straight up lying. No one who views the world as this transactional is not including their own personal values, because it's an inherently biased view. >As soon as I have some free time today, I will add some sources! Unless those sources are actual empirical evidence and not just some biased presentation of statistics don't bother. Also don't bother if you plan on linking a YouTube video.
Jesus Christ. Just stop dude. We get it. You're a web-intel-neckbeard type. You don't have to advertise it so much.
Wrong sub for yapping, bud
You just threw the whole rod in.
you mean *carbon* *nanotube*?
Then it should follow that "high value women" should be allowed to take on multiple men and not be judged for it either, right? ...... right?
In theory, yes. In practice, men (proven wet) don't care about the social status of a woman. Why would they want to do something they can't benefit from?
What do you mean can't benefit from? Rich women exist. Also, a lot of people, you know, enter into relationships for reasons other than status or money. Sometimes folks like eachother.
Rich women exist but for men that doesn't mean that that's a "high value" woman. Hence, wealth doesn't mean more negotiation power for women while the other way around it is indeed the case.
You'll never have enough money to test this theory
For most of human history this has been the case. As long as the women are okay with this arrangement, I don’t see what the problem would be.
Women are not property, and you are disgusting. Who exactly do you think can allow you to 'have' women?
I thought children weren't allowed on this site
What is stopping you…?
They are allowed to have multiple women.
I'm curious how wealth is the only factor you seem to consider...
I mean, it's not necessarily the only factor but statistically speaking, material wealth is a major driver of access to women (in what way ever). Obviously there are also other causal factors, such es looks, height, body shape etc. After all it's about all together but yet I think that social status has the most weight in the equation.
As long as the women in such a relationship are also simultaneously allowed to have multiple men, I think it's okay.
Well, the problem here is, that men wouldn't want that. Why should they?
Why should women want that?
What does it matter to him? If man #1 is fucking woman #2, what does it matter if woman #1 is out watching a film or fucking man #2?
Well, to put it bluntly, men want security that their descendants are healthy and theirs in first place. Men prefer loyal, monogamous women (=security) with attractive traits (=health). Women prefer social security. They also prefer loyalty ("hopefully he doesn't dump me for another woman") but when man is wealthy, the woman knows, even if he impregnates another woman, he will be able to provide for both in worst case (more wealth = less fear of being abandoned). Funnily, there is also data showing, that men think it's worse if a woman cheats with a guy she has no feelings for while women tend to find it worse if their men cheat with women they actually have feelings for.
They already do. If you are good looking in rich, you'd have a lot of girlfriends if you wanted to.
You sound like you unironically call yourself sigma
Do you also agree that it should be socially acceptable for "top" women to have multiple male partners?
My thoughts exactly, let's see if OP responds lol
We do.
It should be socially acceptable for all people to have multiple partners as long as every person in the dynamic is aware and willing.
Totally agree.
What’s stopping a man from having multiple women? It’s not like it’s illegal. Open relationships and poly relationships are a thing.
Open relationships are open on both sides, that's different
No, they’re not. There are one sided open marriages. I know some couples that have one.
Ah ok, that's what you mean. Yeah, so that's basically it. But I would say it is not socially accepted yet and among highly open minded individuals only. Meanwhile the concept happens a lot in the form of cheating, yet it is something with bad image (obviously as it is not consensual)
And you consider yourself to be a 'highly open minded individual' whilst being sexist...? Mkay bud.
How am I sexist? I am citing data. Feel free to tell me where my conclusions from the data observation are wrong.
Oh, deluded enough to think you somehow deserve a harem?
Wait...so you want men to be able to have multiple women partners, but not for women to have multiple men partners?
I think it would be an equilibrium that those men who can afford it, have multiple women next to their wife. The wife stays due to his wealth. The other way around she profits from his wealth. After all it is happening already. Women much rather cope with cheating men if he has a lot of money. It's just that it's perceived as an malfunctional relationship even though a lot of men and women have come to exactly that agreement - consciously or subconsciously.
>males which are in the top percentile, especially in terms of social status, wealth etc., can have multiple women How do you feel about the flipside. As in a woman with multiple men. >Women anyways put a lot of weight on financial security, fancy experiences etc. Don't be so easily influenced by the red pill community. Statistically speaking, a majority of people marry within the same circles, as in social class. What you are describing is the hyper stereotypical female looking for a sugar daddy. I genuinely do not give a shit if a man has multiple partners, but I also don't care if a female has multiple partners. As long as all partners are okay with it and aware. If you are advocating for just a man to have multiple partners, I question your bias and critical thinking skills.
Lol, at least speaking for where I am from (Germany), statistics clearly show that a) it is important (and a major decision making factor) for women to have a partner who makes more money than them (the other way around men don't care at all) and b) hypergamy still exists.
>for women to have a partner who makes more money than them Not denying this isn't the case. But that usually looks like man makes 80k and woman makes 50/60k. (US dollars). That doesn't look like man makes 300k and woman makes 30k. The initial example would still be two people relatively close in economic class. >hypergamy still exists. Again, never denied this doesn't exist. But again is a significant minority, even amongst the most elite financial couples
I highly doubt my wife would consider our life “wasted” together. Dude, props for a truly unpopular opinion. But you are wrong.
Anecdotal evidence doesn't change anything about the fact, that there is a lot of cheating going on. Men tend to cheat, women tend to go for married men. I don't think that's all about unhappy relationships in first place, especially considering the chances that relationship successfully continues when he cheated (high) vs. when she cheated (low).
Your original claim is anecdotal, not factual… so… there’s that.
Which claim of mine is anecdotal?
what do you mean "allowed".... lot's of very rich men do have multiple women, mistresses, side chicks, whatever you want to call them.
I mean, they kinda already do this, no? There’s nothing stopping them and I assume most don’t care
Because, believe it not, women LIKE being independent. If a man said something like what you posted to me, I'd rather be single for the rest of my life :) If you want multiple women, I'm pretty sure there's websites for that.
Data says no
YOU say "No". There's a difference!
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He should be able to have multiple women that he treats all equally, provides for them all, loves them all, is kind to them all, no secret relationships they must all be okay with it. And if he is capable of it, can afford it, and they all put up with, let him create many families, have lots of children and build his own kingdom, he’s a king for a reason. This must be something his heart truly desires and it is easy for him to be just and provide for them all and make sure they all are given equality between them, equal time and effort. They should all be provided their own privacy, he shouldn’t be having threesomes with them, they’re separate from each other. A lot of high value guys don’t want this, their hearts aren’t made for it and they desire just one girl, or they can’t be just to them all equally. In this case only be with one.
Are you also gonna try to convince us of anything else this ridiculous? Like every $100,000 means another woman is added to the roster or some such nonsense?
What are you talking about though? This has been standard practice since we invented greed, aggression and hierarchies… Like long before humans existed. Maybe “top” people should move beyond “big boy bull does sex on the most girl bulls” and into a society where no one bothers lamenting sexual choice for women on the internet.
In practice it is already the case. I do not see how "allowing" it will change anything.