From IncelWiki.com, the largest incel encyclopedia

Polygyny means “multiple women per man”, in a sexual context, and is generally how society orders itself when either chads get power like in Arabic countries. Polygyny on a societal wide scale, with a population of male incels, is also known as “rotating polyandry”. Chad are polygamous.

Non-Polygynandrous polygyny typically creates incels. Polygynandrous polygyny typically alleviates inceldom.


Polygyny has been quite common throughout history, either as a formal or informal institution, with the majority of documented human cultures practicing at least some form of polygyny.[1]

Humanities closest extant animal ancestors, the apes of the Pan Genus (Chimps and Bonobos) are polygynous, though the type of polygyny practiced by them is often called polygynandry. Though the 'Alpha' Chimps attempt to monopolize their multiple female partners by force, this is often a futile venture, with the females of those species being highly promiscuous.[2]

Human's proportionately smaller testicle size, and lesser degree of sexual dimorphism between the sexes (compared to other great apes) implies that cuckoldry was not as common among human's ancestors as it is among their closest living Great Ape relatives. This is due to the fact that mammal species with more promiscuous females typically evolve larger testicles to produce greater amounts of semen in an attempt to displace male competitor's sperm, to win the battle to fertilize the female partner's egg.[3]

Relation to female hypergamy[edit]

Polygyny naturally ties in with the topic of hypergamy as women's greater choosiness, and their greater tendency to demand a potential romantic partner to have resource provision capabilities or high social status compared to men, implies an overall tendency for women to date up.

An example of this would be the fact that a man's social status is positively associated with his potential fertility and ability to become polygynous, that is, that wealthier and higher status men have a much greater 'potential' copulation frequency. Status was in fact found in one large scale study to explain up to 62% of the variance in men's potential copulation frequency, much higher than the typical effect sizes for other male traits in relation to this topic in psychology.[4][5]

There is also strong evidence that the historical selection pressure on male wealth has been fairly large, with this selection pressure being the strongest in cultures with institutionalized polygyny.[6] This historical selection pressure on male wealth strongly suggests that greater male wealth historically increased a man's chance of being polygynous, with a man's potential to become polygynous becoming mediated more by a man's access to resources, as opposed to brute physical dominance, as human societies increased in complexity.

These selection pressures on male resource provision potential, while weaker in societies with monogamous marriage norms, are still existent due to serial monogamy and institutions that subvert strict monogamy by allowing high-status men access to concurrent female partners. An example in Western culture would be wealthy men often maintaining one or several mistresses. Serial monogamy would be expected to benefit wealthier men, as these men often remarry younger, fertile women.[7]

Remarriage rates are consistently higher in men than women,[8] wealthy men are less likely to be childless primarily due to them being more likely than poorer men to be in stable unions (marital or non-marital),[9] and serial monogamy benefits men more than women (likely due to men's more lengthy potential reproductive careers).[10]

This evidence suggests that wealthy men are more likely to practice de-facto polygyny, even in modern countries with greater gender equality and still extant (though often weakly observed) monogamous social norms.


See also[edit]

External links[edit]

This page contains text from an editor (Altmark) who wanted his text released under CC-BY-4.0. William also releases his text on this page under the same license, and so this whole page is CC-BY-4.0, with the exception of content released under other licenses. If using the material under this license, you may credit it as: Altmark, William et al, unless otherwise stated to not credit William, in which case to just credit: Altmark et al. Most other pages on this wiki we declare as unlicensed to re-use outside of here unless expressely stated by email and under the conditions listed in the email.