For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme
The provided image is fairly bad, but there is another part of this thread where some guy is unironically trying to science and logic other people about how "unhealthy" polyamory is, and how it is a "choice" and therefore should be discouraged.
Plus the hundreds of upvotes on deleted comments that were likely ... not so good. Though I have no idea how to view deleted comments.
And yes, feel proud of me. I blocked r/neoliberal. A small step towards better mental health.
Because if you don't follow monogamy, how can your bloodline accumulate property? How can the rules of inheritance be clearly defines, and how can your property ownership not be rapidly diluted?
^^^ the argument engels makes about why class societies are obsessed with monogamy
Succession wars in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Royals still had plenty of polyamory, and in come cases, even polygamy. I guarantee you that horny, or the desire for more progeny, far outweighed any concern about diluting the inheritance.
The social norm of only having one of the partnerships being recognized was what centered the question of wealth and lineage.
However royals made frequent use of concubines and prostitutes, leading to "illegitimate" children who wouldn't inherit.
Even without concubines, nobles would very often remarry when a spouse died, of natural causes or otherwise. The norm within the nobility of a man only having children with one wife is relatively recent.