Children of married parents do better, but America is moving the other way

Forming a new country does not mean abandoning the parent culture. American society is still feeling the influence of the British empire.

> The US is geographically very large and open. Even within the nation of immigrants, there was a huge amount of migration to populate "the west".

This is certainly true, but I'd also venture that a lot of these western pioneers had more solid 'friends' that they could depend than a solid portion of Americans today.

> The US has a very weak central government, by design of the Constitution, and it never had a state church. There's no centralizing cultural force.

This is to America's advantage. In fact, a strong central government is often at odds with community mindedness, which is what we find in most left-wing enclaves (this is my opinion). In his book Democracy in America, de Tocqueville, writes:

"Americans of all ages, all stations of life and all types of disposition are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand types-religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute."

"Finally, if they want to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling ...they form an association. In every case, at the head of any new undertaking, where in France you would find the government ... in the United States you are sure to find an association."

[1] https://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/de-tocqueville-amer...

(Democracy was seen by the founders as way to protect liberty more than liberty was seen as a way to protect democracy.)

"Don't tread on me," was a slogan of the American revolution. Ditto, "give me liberty or give me death." For many decades, drug addiction raged in the US while heroin and cocaine remained legal because a Federal law against the free trade in these drugs was seen as an unconstitutional curtailment of the individual's liberty. The starting of a Federal income tax was likewise held up for decades on the same argument.

Again, liberty has been the main organizing principle of the US since its founding, and I'd be a little surprised to learn that there are Americans with IQs above 110 that do not know that, but I guess some people are too busy to learn about history and politics.

Of course the stats play out this way. But it doesn't change the fact women WANT to date men who get paid higher than them.

Think about it. Men do not care how much a woman gets paid. In fact they have a slight preference for women who get paid less. So given that a rich woman has the same attraction level on average as a poor woman, their performance will be on average identical. Meaning they date a man with the same average salary.

Then of course rich women on average will be more likely to have more money than a man with an average salary. Use your critical thinking here. The statistics have to play out this way.

But none of it changes what women want and none of it changes female behavior. We want men who are better than us. We want the best and we demand it.

>harem, not Harlem. Also "harem-style" polygamy is rare in the USA, the most common form by far is "kitchen-table polygamy". In this version, it's actually easier for arbitrary random men to find mates because women in stable poly relationships happily have sex with a wide variety of men "on the side", and can carve out space and time to give those men chances to earn a strong relationship with those women.

Assume that agreed upon polygamy is so rare that it's existence is negligible. I'm talking about people who get married to multiple wives.

What is common is hookup culture. This is the real "polygamy" in the US right now. So take for example my hypergamous instincts make me desire this really hot rich guy. But that guy is so desirable that he has many many options. On some level I know this but it doesn't matter... I want him and I don't mind the fact that he fucked other women and he doesn't mind who I fucked either because he's an alpha male who has an abundance of choice.

The average male who I don't care for and is invisible to me, usually tries to get into an ltr. It's the best option for him due to a dearth of choices. For him it is critical that the woman he is with did not have intercourse with anyone else. This isn't some "thing" I made up that desire in men is scientifically verified to be a distinct instinct than women. Yes. Science as in actual science not some hand wavy stuff that's from most of your reply.

>Anywhere "affair" is a thing, anyone has intense instincts to end the relationship, because of a catastrophic breakdown of trust. In the vast majority of poly relationships in the USA, women having sex with other men isn't an "affair" and doesn't trigger this type of reaction.

Wrong. Again human emotions stem from primal desires and instincts not from arbitrary rules of trust. The topic you are going on about has been studied and the studies show you are utterly and completely wrong. Stop looking at official polygamous marriages. Agreements like that are so rare it's negligible. This is the point: Men are not ok with women having sexual affairs in general and women are a bit more on with it and these two differences stem from biology not some made up relationship rules. Citation:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.654 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14747049060040...

This also explains my emotions. Why I'm more willing to hook up with a man who's done well with a lot of woman and why men in general don't like to marry women with high body counts.

If that was not clear, I am saying that women are the variable that is messing everything up, and as a recipient of this reality I think anyone who believe otherwise is either a fool or politically motivated for some reason.