La polygamie est-elle la solution pour les hommes ?

This discussion addresses the question of whether polygamy is a solution for men, a topic that has been frequently raised. The speaker notes that this question, along with others like "how to reproduce if the entire population is MGTOW," are recurring themes that have been previously covered and will continue to be revisited until the information is compiled into a forthcoming book. The core argument begins by challenging the common misconception that polygamy could resolve men's needs for multiple partners or variety. The speaker asserts that such a view indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of his previous explanations. He attributes this to a deep-seated mental manipulation from societal education that prevents people from moving beyond the concept of committed relationships and couples. He argues that polygamy is essentially a "multiple monogamy," meaning it multiplies the inherent problems of a monogamous relationship by the number of partners involved. The fundamental issue, according to the speaker, is not the monogamous couple, but the concept of the couple itself. He dismisses open relationships as equally ineffective, claiming they cannot meet men's needs. The speaker then elaborates on the "Coolidge effect," a phenomenon he describes as universally applicable to men and most animals. This effect dictates that after sexual intercourse with a woman, a man's desire for her diminishes, at least temporarily. This leads to a need for diversity and novelty, an "effect of wear and habituation." He claims to have quantified this effect in a mathematical model called "my model of human desire," which he plans to update and discuss further in a future video. He describes his own experience as having an "extremely rapid" Coolidge effect, where desire for a partner vanishes instantly after intercourse, only potentially returning much later. He states that all men operate this way, despite claims to the contrary, and that statistics support this view. Men who enter into relationships do so not out of genuine desire, but because they are "indoctrinated" and perceive it as the "least bad" option in Western societies, which he characterizes as lands of "scarcity of women" and "abstinence." They choose a "couple's burden" over abstinence and solitude. The speaker then directly addresses the idea of taking four women to satisfy the need for variety. He outlines two scenarios: taking four women at once or sequentially. In either case, these women would be in an engaged relationship, living with the man and being "on his back all day." The Coolidge effect would quickly set in with the first woman; for some, it's immediate, for others, it might take around three years for sexual desire to almost completely disappear. Furthermore, he points out the issue of aging. He states that women "will get old, she will become ugly" and become "waste" once they hit their forties. A man would then be burdened with this "cannonball," continuing to financially support her. The problem isn't simply replacing the first woman, but keeping her, even if he no longer desires her, while trying to acquire a second, then a third, and a fourth. Each new woman would eventually fall victim to the Coolidge effect and aging, leaving the man with multiple "cannonballs" to support—a "catastrophe" and "nightmare" far worse than a monogamous relationship. He sarcastically considers the idea of taking a new woman every ten years, concluding that for a man with a rapid Coolidge effect, this would amount to four weeks of happiness over forty years of misery. He calls this "completely idiotic" and "hell," questioning why anyone would choose to be burdened with "used rags." The speaker emphasizes that men are not legally obligated to be in relationships, whether monogamous or polygamous. Singleness and abstinence are legal, a fact he believes should be taught in fairy tales, where characters live happily ever after by refusing "burdensome" partners. He also briefly re-addresses open relationships, which he previously covered. He argues that while an open relationship might allow a man to seek other partners, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. The primary utility of a woman to a man, he claims, is "managing the little bird" (sexual desire). If that is removed from the equation, all other functions a woman might provide are "useless, replaceable, can be outsourced, and would cost much less." He dismisses roles like cleaning, cooking, and even companionship as either unnecessary (given external services are cheaper and more convenient) or quickly exhausted (discussions become repetitive after a few months). Even business partnerships, he states, don't require daily cohabitation and can be achieved with professional associates. The speaker concludes by reiterating that these are recurring questions and encourages viewers to submit new, more complex topics for discussion in the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement.