>I think that true. If wife number 1 refuses to have children and there are no children, then I think you can avoid the downstream population wide effects of polygamy (i.e. Everybody acting like muslims, and no Im not kidding) I agree with you about the stakes. Monogamy only works if society in general is quite harsh about enforcing it. >Possibly. How many of them are actually triggered by a male infidelity? I would want to verify that before I hung my hat on it. >I think traditionally the male initiated divorce by skipping town never to be heard from again. But now they can track people down and make them pay. And with child support and many women collecting on welfare programs and having jobs, being divorced is much more doable for women. But this arrangement is basically a polygamous one, and if the guy has enough money to support the old wife and kids while pursuing a new wife and kids, I think this is really a case of patriarchal polygamy, aka—muzzies. I just worry that we will be turning into either muslims or africans, in a functional way. Historically people were much more bound to their region. Men who were more mobile (like tinkerers and soldiers) weren't attractive marriage prospects and there's all kinds of folk songs warning women about becoming involved with them. Honestly though, as far as white people are concerned we're not really becoming either since we're not even reproducing at replacement rates. If things keep going the way they are the future isn't white patriarchal polygamists, it's just few/no white people period. Congratulations on your suspicious behaviour tag btw. How'd you earn it?