If you have functioning eyes, you are bound to naturally grow love or lust for another woman, after you must have got married to another. People say it is part of what makes a man. I think I believe.

But that is not all — I also think we better clarify the huge differences between that love and lust before saying it’s normal (just like I admitted above).

This, however, doesn’t mean you are not natural. It only requires you to choose whether to execute the weird thought running through your mind or not.

By this simple analysis, it only requires you follow your instincts (if you sure know what you’re doing) whether to stick to your wife alone; by taking your eyes off others or not.

This is where self-discipline plays the major role. Self-discipline is when your body requires something you and I know it’s totally not the best option, and you are able to knock it out of your mind. The other option is to decide whether having two wives is what you really want.

The major thing which relates both thoughts is that you get carried away for some time. They say it makes a man, but I tell you what I believe. Isn’t it best to say that such a thought doesn’t in any way make you inferior to others? Don’t rush me. I will explain!

You are not alone.

At a point in every man’s life, sometimes, we go as far as playing the self-blame game. You see a woman and you be like, “only God knows where she was when I was looking for a wife”.

Without being told, you know she’s way prettier than your wife, right? Yeah, that feeling is weird, but you don’t have to be an idiot. It is called lust!

Self-discipline is what makes you arrive at a sharp conclusion that your wife is better, and the best option. Real men are measured by how they are able to fight temptation like Beyonce did in her old school song.

Skinny and dangerous hot plus-sized girls are everywhere with their skimpy see-through dresses, designed to tempt you. This alone is enough to break a home, but if you are like me, you will shout DEVIL IS A LIAR!

Unless where your tribe, ethnicity, religions etc support polygamous, every man with more than one wife are mostly those whose level of self-control is low; or in most cases, zero!

Are Women Naturally More Polygamous Than Men?

Here is what Jessy Rebecca has got to say about this:

“I don’t think men are more polygamous than women. In a perfect world where women would be free of patriarchal societies and religions as well as slut-shaming, women would probably be just as polygamous, if not more than men.

Things like stoning or beheading women for having sex outside of marriage, telling women to stay virgins until they are married, slut-shaming any woman who has or had two or more lovers, etc. is what makes women think polygamy is a man thing. Men, for the most part, are taught “boys will be boys”. High five each other for scoring, etc.

If consenting ADULTS were left to form relationships on their own (without cultural, religious input) there would be so many different types of relationships from monogamy to polyamory”.

Do you really think men are more polygamous in nature than women? I think your assumption might need a thorough check.

You know why?

A man once sang in a song, “I can get married to more than one wife, there is nothing bad in it. But when a woman has more than one husband, she becomes a prostitute”.

Right from a youthful boy-girl relationship, when a man gets more than one partner, he got kudos from all and sundry. It is often seen as an achievement. He becomes a superman!

A woman who got guts to try the same instantly becomes a whore! This is what our relationship mentality looks like.

Now, what if there is no whore-shaming if women were given the chance? What if women were given the same opportunity to enjoy the same privileges?

But replying Jessy, another user; Victor was of the fact that….

What modern day liberals and feminists don’t understand is there are reasons for all those old cultural and religious rules and taboos. That is why they are similar across the majority of cultures and religions. Men promoted assurances of paternity in exchange for their labour/resources.

Before birth control methods were created, these rules were created to prevent Paternity fraud.
Something women never have to worry about because it’s something biologically impossible for them so they don’t get it.

Also by restricting male access to sex, women raised the value of it enough that would men fully complemented and supported women in a labour-intensive and dangerous world (before desk and office jobs) just to get regular sex. Your grandmother’s generation got this, coining the phrase “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free“.

Virginity/low partner count is/was proof of a woman’s self-control of her urges, further giving a man confidence in investing in a woman and that the resultant children were his.

Monogamy also allowed less value men that worked hard enough to be of material value to a woman, to get one, instead of the most attractive men monopolizing women.

Women’s sexuality naturally predisposes them to desire only the best(naturally for the genetic strength of offspring), therefore the top 20-40% of men would monopolize the women, leaving the rest of men unproductive past providing for themselves. Not mention that top percentage of men had their pick, so they obviously didn’t have to work to get laid, just show up other men perhaps, so had no motivation to be productive beyond providing for themselves.

Thus women primarily fended not only for themselves but their children without dedicated help from men. The “Patriarchy” and “Marriage” is nothing but a system to give men a place and say in reproduction and sex in exchange for respect and labour/resources.
This is the ultimate reason why marriage was called the “bedrock” of society and why homosexuals couldn’t marry.

The destruction of marriage(by removing paternity assurances and male influence of children by female dedicated divorce and custody laws) is also is the reason behind western civilization’s loss fertility and productivity as men slowly drop out and become less and less willing to produce more than they need themselves for a system that no longer gives them say or value or respect beyond a check, and leaves vast swaths of men incelabate and frustrated(all the psycho school shooters were Virgin incels) as society switches back to a precivilization state of female dominance of the reproductive pie. — Victor

He further straightens that Polygamy with women sharing men doesn’t tend to work long term in societies for multiple reasons.

(1) Men have always traded resources for sex, whether it’s prostitution or “marriage”. Dedicating two or more men’s labour/resources to a single woman is wasteful on a reproductive and social scale. However, for a man with enough excess to provide for multiple women and their children, it is efficient.

Better to have a man with enough to raise children, than sire them with a man who can’t provide as much or even enough. Even more efficient if there is a shortage of males due to fighting, disease and war.

(2) Paternity assurance is important biologically and instinctively to a male. Most of a man’s sperm is designed to fend off foreign sperm, and the head of a penis is thought to be that way so it could scoop out competition semen. There are no paternity assurances when men share a woman. If a man can’t fend off competition, he doesn’t reproduce, which means all men are descended from men who DID fend off competition. So men are wired to be territorial.

(3) The type of men who would share one woman(while supporting her, just sleeping with her notwithstanding), usually aren’t that attractive(which is also why they are willing to share), and generally wouldn’t be desirable to a woman long term.

Instinctfully, a guy like that would be genetically abhorrent because a man like that could sire male children like that, which instead of her sons spreading her genes far and wide, they would end up dead ends raising other men’s children.

In practice, this setup ends up with one guy getting pity sex to stick around and pay for stuff, while she sleeps primarily with the attractive one who isn’t that worried about paternity because he’s sleeping with pretty much full time or doesn’t give crap about children, pity sex guy can take care of them. They both are pretty much living off of pity sex guy with the woman.

(4) if you don’t believe #3, look it up online, and notice in the picture the woman is primarily cuddled up with one, and the other looks like he’s trying like hell just to get a touch in.

The irony is that the child support/welfare system that western societies created to allow women sexual and reproductive “freedom” (which truly means, removing all male say in reproduction and sex because it takes two), will never work long term because of the same lack of motivation that plagues communism.

Fear, (which is threatening of imprisonment for child support and taxes in Western societies) was proven a poor substitute for reward in communist countries. To support all those fatherless children requires expropriation of male resources, but men won’t produce enough from fear alone.

Eventually, the inflation will make the money useless and the system break as men produce less and less real resources. Right now western societies are only truly seeing a reduction in desire to reproduce (which is why immigration is the topic of the day, to import more taxpayers).

Eventually, those who still produce well will be taxed to insolvency or desire to produce excess, and boom goes this “sexual/liberal” experiment, and everything will reset back to patriarchy which was more beneficial agreement between the sexes.

The rules against female authority (like voting) in most cultures were there to prevent this sexual dystopia from forming in the first place, not because women were incapable.

History shows us shortly after you have women en mass gain authority, the empires fall from insolvency as woman try to reestablish their natural superiority over the sexual market.

This destruction of male motivation to participate in reproduction and society beyond their own survival and the act itself is the reason female promiscuity has always been regarded as more destructive and taboo than male promiscuity because regulated female sexuality (which controls male sexuality by association) is the cornerstone of a civilization vs scattered tribes. — Victor.

That was a huge contribution above by Victor, which was curled from the comment section of a similar topic, but that is about what he thinks as well as what the society dictates.

Over to you as you join the conversation in the comment section below as regards what you think. Do you think men are more polygamous in nature than women?