SisterWives, a polygyny dating site

23 Jul

So, I’ve mentioned various specialized dating sites out there that I’ve found (see here, here, here, and here).

And now I’ve found another, no doubt for Mormons and others wanting to be nagged by several wives:

sisterwives1 sisterwives2
I doubt any of our readers would be interested, but I thought y’all might enjoy a laugh / headshake. 🙂


Posted by on July 23, 2014 in on the lighter side


39 responses to “SisterWives, a polygyny dating site

  1. Ras Al Ghul

    July 23, 2014 at 10:40 am

    If I was to be married, having four wives would be the only way to do it

  2. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 10:58 am

    LOL! 🙂

    I can certainly see the appeal of multiple wives in one regard… 😉

    But imagine them ganging up on you, all yelling at you at once about this and that, then fighting with each other while you have to play referee…

    No thanks; not for me!

  3. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 11:00 am

    And imagine paying alimony and child support to four wives and their brood, should they decide to divorce you…

  4. sfcton

    July 23, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    Actually Will having more then one puts a whole lot of game theory to work. I know your statement is the popular view but it doesn’t work that way ( unless you do a bad job of leading the house hold)

  5. sfcton

    July 23, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Ps no alimony as you cannot be “legally” wed

  6. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    sfcton, running game on one woman at a time is enough work; no doubt ‘spinning multiple plates’ is harder…

    And yes, for now, in Canada and the U.S., you can only be legally wed to one.

    However, that could change in time…

  7. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    I could easily see it being enacted here, with English common law, all that’s necessary to be married in the eyes of the State is to live together; it would be a simple enough amendment to do likewise for polygamists…

  8. sfcton

    July 23, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    LOL Will they run the game for you. You are pre selected, your other option is always visible and dread… discipline both when they get catty with each other, be impartial and it becomes a self running enterprise. Sooner or later I’ll do a more in depth post on it over at my blog.

  9. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    I suppose you can also always play them off against each other. 😉

  10. Sean

    July 23, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    Ontario has de facto allowed polygamy once they decided to recognize Muslims who get married elsewhere to more than one allowed to bring them and put them under the welfare shield of the husband.

  11. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    Oh yes! I’d forgotten that…


  12. sfcton

    July 23, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    Nope Will, their imagination does the work for you.

  13. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    Even better. 🙂

  14. sfcton

    July 23, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Sure enough my friend. I’ve seen enough poly houses crash and burn to.understand the resistance but they all fail for pretty much the same avoidable reasons

  15. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    The same reasons why ‘open marriages’ fail? I know that jealousy is the main reason for that…

    (That, and the woman ditching hubby for a new boyfriend; I know of one case of that, personally…) Jealousy is perfectly rational; open marriages are not.

  16. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Anyway, I’m looking forward to your post on polyamory. Please pop by and let us know when it’s up.

  17. Ras Al ghul

    July 23, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    Will, if you have four, and the optimal number is four, because you are right if you have two they will always fight, if you have three, there will always be one on the outs, but four causes an natural development of two pairs and they compete with each other.

    • Will S.

      July 23, 2014 at 6:35 pm

      Ah. Makes sense, intuitively…

  18. infowarrior1

    July 23, 2014 at 8:59 pm

    @Will S.
    The long term consequences as always is the shortage of women as a result of polygyny. The Islamic world has alot of angry incels ready to wage jihad as a result. Perhaps this is why so many jihadis are so angry.

    • Will S.

      July 23, 2014 at 9:42 pm

      Exactly, infowarrior1. Which is why, even if Christianity permitted polygyny, I still wouldn’t agree with it.

      Polygyny means alpha men screwing over the rest of men.

      I can understand why those who can do it, do it.

      But I dislike it, intensely, because of the overall negative impact on society.

  19. sfcton

    July 23, 2014 at 10:38 pm

    Nope that line of thinking is overly simplistic & leaves out the real nature of islam

  20. infowarrior1

    July 23, 2014 at 11:05 pm


    Of course its not the only reason but it is a significant factor.

  21. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 11:06 pm

    I wasn’t talking specifically about Islamic society; I was talking in general.

    Nevertheless, would you not agree that the vast pool of unmarriageable men created partly by polygyny results in cannon fodder for Jihad, and helps breed extremism?

    Somebody, I forget if it was Steve Sailer or someone else, has articulated this kind of argument, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

    Look, by nature, in the natural course of events, populations tend to be roughly half and half; even if 52:48 or so, female to male.

    When you have polygyny, you have some top dog alpha males getting more mates, and less available therefore for men at the bottom; simple math dictates this.

    And Islamic societies that have polygyny no doubt suffer the effects of this just as much as primitive tribefolk do, and as Utah Mormons would have had the U.S. government not forced them to abandon polygyny.

  22. infowarrior1

    July 23, 2014 at 11:08 pm

    @Will S.

    The only reason to even implement polygyny is lack of men due to accidents or death in war. It may only work temporarily if you want a warlike constant expansionist empire.

  23. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 11:21 pm

    That makes sense to me, infowarrior1. And of course, if it remains in place, rather than as a temporary measure – like income tax was supposed to be temporary but now is a permanent fixture of governments – then the only solution is the reverse – to get more men killed in accidents and war.

    Thus allowing elites to continue having multiple wives.

    Fuck that.

    Christians should oppose it. I can understand why heathens, esp. PUAs, may desire it, but their thinking is self-centred and short-term, rather than societal and long-term…

  24. Will S.

    July 23, 2014 at 11:27 pm

    Elites can do what they’ve always done – take mistresses…

    They don’t need to make it official, and have society’s ‘blessing’ in so doing.

    Unless we want to be just like sophisticated non-Protestant continental European cultures that accept such things openly and brazenly – like France, Italy, Greece… Ones that look down on us WASPs…

    Fuck that.

  25. Richard Follette

    July 24, 2014 at 3:12 am

    Reblogged this on Rise of The West and commented:
    National replacement rates from abortion, disease and war, might make this much easier to digest in the future for ethnic-Europeans here, in America.

  26. Cj aka Elderofzyklons Blog

    July 24, 2014 at 4:38 am

    Reblogged this on ElderofZyklon's Blog!.

  27. sfcton

    July 24, 2014 at 7:11 am

    Nope because I don’t see a lot of unmarried men in the moslem world. #2 contrary to popular belief most jihadists are of what passes for middle class or better. I’m talking about the forgein fighters who travel from.their nation of birth to fight in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I would have to read what Sailer said to say for sure but most folks are dead wrong on the issue. They lack boots on the ground experience

  28. sfcton

    July 24, 2014 at 7:13 am

    They also have a much different cultural mindset and accept a lot of what we wouldn’t with a shrug and muttering “if God wills”

  29. Will S.

    July 24, 2014 at 9:28 am

    @ sfcton: Interesting. Yes, they have a fatalism of a sort that superficially resembles that of Calvinism, with their ‘Inshallah’… (I say superficially, because the Reformed faith, rather than inspiring fatalism, has inspired revolutions / upheavals; one might think it would have been otherwise, but it’s not).

    @ Richard Follette: Possibly. I mean, what with Mormons, there is historical precedent…

  30. Will S.

    July 30, 2014 at 11:27 pm

    Somebody doesn’t like that I pointed out which kinds of cultures accept mistresses.

    Too bad; suck it.

    Moreover, such nations were pioneers in public nudity, lax sexual morality, and the like; that rot didn’t come from London or New York…

    And, anti-Protestant bigot, if we’re hardly Christians, what does that make your non-Protestant European nations?

    Twit. It’ll be a cold day in hell before you ever post here; we have rules; should have read them after getting your knickers in a knot, but before you chose to post.

    Go to some anti-Protestant neo-reactionary blog, where you’ll find like-minded there, unlike here.

    Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!

  31. oogenhand

    August 1, 2015 at 10:34 am

    Reblogged this on oogenhand.

  32. infowarrior1

    October 3, 2016 at 8:20 am

    Hey its closed down. Out of money and time ha! 🙂

    • Will S.

      October 3, 2016 at 11:02 am

      Ah. Interesting.

      • infowarrior1

        October 5, 2016 at 6:11 am

        Shows that such ideas won’t fly at least in our modern era.

      • Will S.

        October 7, 2016 at 10:33 pm

        So it would appear.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s