Tag Archives: History of marriage

The History of Harems: Women Orbit, Too


It’s good to be king: Italian artist Belisario Gioja painted Entertainment in the Harem depicting the lifestyle in the 19th century

Beta males usually orbit women they are sexually interested in. Just as Earth revolves around the sun because of gravitational attraction, the hapless Beta male will go into orbit around a girl he finds attractive. The girl he is orbiting will often use him for feels, to get help with homework or other tasks she doesn’t like doing, or as a plutonic companion to cull boredom. He thinks he will get a foot in the door with her, and then a penis in the vagina, but the reality is he will be going home to fap while daydreaming about her each day.

Nature, it would seem, it not without a sense of irony as women orbit, too. However, in contrast to the sexless, hopeless Beta male, the orbiting female will be attracted to a man of very high status, wealth, and/or power and she will be happy make herself sexually available to him, even though she has to orbit him along with other females who are attracted by the scent of his resources or power. The harem arises from this tendency of women to orbit high status men.

Women will often try to justify this behavior the same way a squid attempts evasion, by dropping figurative ink into the discussion. They’re just hanging around because he is such an interesting guy. Just because these girls are with him doesn’t mean there’s anything sexual going on. She just likes him as a person. You are just jealous because you don’t have girls around you like that. Whatever. Hamster rationalization, anyone? Let’s analyze this: Some leftist guy that goes around harping about global warming, with no pecs, a flabby stomach, and a beard befitting a bum does not collect a large gathering of nubile females unless he has something they want. But that’s exactly what Leonardo DiCaprio is, as depicted in the photo below, except he has status, wealth, and power. Which brings us back to Briffault’s Law, a frequent piece of scientific evidence frequently referred to here at TNMM:

Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

The gist of Briffault’s Law is this: women are nature’s consummate users. Nothing against them personally, that’s just the way evolution designed them. Female orbiting is their way of saying: “Pick me, pick me!” to a male they have zeroed in on as someone who has vast resources they can consume. This instinctual drive, plainly seen in this paparazzi photo, carries over to this day and has a long history in our species.


Without his money, status, and power, do you think women would be orbiting the soft Beta male Leo?

History of Harems

The behavior of women orbiting men that are useful to them and the practice of women becoming part of a harem both go back thousands of years, if not much further back in unrecorded human history. The term harem is a Turkish word that refers to polygyny as historically practiced in Muslim households, although the practice of polygyny was common in Asia and other parts of the world as well. The Ottoman sultan usually kept a harem of several dozen women, including girlfriends and wives. Far from “oppression” that women claim such behavior to be, modern day evidence of this behavior, as females orbit around high status men like Leo is plain as day. Indeed, history shows countless women circling one dominant man was a highly regulated affair in the Ottoman Empire.

The harem was not just a place where women lived. Babies were born and children grew up there. Within the precincts of the harem were markets, bazaars, laundries, kitchens, playgrounds, schools and baths. The harem had a hierarchy, its chief authorities being the wives and female relatives of the emperor and below them were the concubines. There was mother, step-mothers, aunts, grandmothers, step-sisters, sisters, daughters and other female relatives that lived in the harem. There were also ladies-in-waiting, servants, maids, cooks, women official and guards.

Even though the English harem word derives from that part of the world, it was not just an Islamic practice . Here are some other parts of the world in which women were in harems of a dominant man rather than the one and only of hapless Beta males, the exact type of male they show open contempt towards today:

  • Egypt: Pharaohs demanded to be in the constant company of numerous beautiful girls.
  • Sri Lanka: King Kashyapa had a harem that numbered 500.
  • Mexico: Montezuma had 4,000 concubines when he met Cortez.
  • China: One emperor had 2,800 concubines.
  • Africa: Junior wives and concubines orbited Chieftans.
  • Mongolia: Genghis Khan fathered so many children 1 in 200 men have his DNA today.
  • In other cultures, one wife was shared by several brothers.

The University of Wisconsin showed the practice of maintaining harems is far from unusual in history. It surveyed 1,000 historical societies to find out how common polygyny has been, and the findings are astonishing: Just 18% of historical societies were monogamous. Half of rest of the 82% had occasional polygyny and the other half had it all the time. If nothing else, this historical fact helps show why women have such contempt for Beta males – they are not as valuable for providing material things as high status men. The Guardian reported these statistics:

New Scientist magazine suggested that, until 10,000 years ago [a blink of an eye in biological time] most children had been sired by comparatively few men. Variations in DNA, it said, showed that the distribution of X chromosomes suggested that a few men seem to have had greater input into the gene pool than the rest. By contrast most women seemed to get to pass on their genes.

As New Scientist proved, historically, only a fraction of males got to reproduce, and indeed the measure of man’s wealth and power was often how many women he had in his harem or how many wives and children he had. We still see echoes of this innate female behavior to “sex the winner and nix the loser” play out in society. Women will prostrate themselves before rock stars, movie stars, and other men of status while totally abandoning the honest, hardworking Beta males in society. This is commonly referred to as the Pareto Principle, or the 80/20 rule, 80% of women chase after the top 20% of men. Historically, it was always a safer bet to ration precious eggs to top men, rather than take a chance on those who would like be fodder for leaders to use in the next battle. Women still exhibit this bias towards men to this day, even though environmental conditions have changed.

The practice of polygyny and a few top men getting all the puss has been going on so long in our species new studies are showing women evolved to have sexuality that is more “fluid” than male sexuality, and will often become bisexual, having sex with other women to please the dominant man who runs the harem and jockey for position in the hierarchy of wives and concubines.

Even though feminism is constantly in the face of Beta males making demands, we see top males like Hollyweird actors are virtually immune to criticism from women for having an entourage of young women with them wherever they go because of their social status. But, could you imagine the outrage if the average Beta male worker drone went around his neighborhood everyday with an entourage of young, nubile women? Women would be incensed and instantly move to destroy such a man with verbal venom. (That is, of course, laughable both because women would not associate with such a man – they cannot extract resources from him all at the same time.) In spite of feminism, even in our modern “progressive” times, the practice of holding harems still exists. Polygyny is still legal in these countries to this day:

  • South Africa
  • Egypt
  • Eritrea
  • Morocco
  • Malaysia
  • Iran
  • Libya

Christianity stamped out the practice of maintaining harems and polygyny in much of the world, starting with missionaries converting people in Africa. However, today as Christianity and the monogamy it enforces both decline the practice is actually seeing somewhat of a revival.

Some even say by bringing it back it is a way for societies to assert their beliefs in defiance of Western “cultural imperialism.” (Ed: The liberal talent for inventing word jumbles in their quest to be eternal victims is as amazing as it is pathetic.) Even though the idea of harems and polygyny is completely and totally at odds with the gender equality feminists claim to worship, we do not hear them condemning actors for maintaining a harem. Quite to the contrary, they will defend the behavior and call men who point out their cognitive dissonance “losers.” We also do not hear them condemning Middle Eastern societies where it is still practiced. But we do often hear invented terms like stare rape, microaggression, and other such nonsense regularly used against Western Betas.

Now you know when you see women scream and throw their panties at rock stars, and orbit dominant males in society, there is a biological and historical reason for their behavior. As with many things in life, it’s winner take all, including all the sex. This is why it is infinitely better for a man’s sex life to choose to be an azzhole than it is to be a nice guy. Niceness gets you nowhere, historically or otherwise, except placed in orbit around a female who will at best take advantage of you to do things and buy stuff for her. Being dominant means women will orbit you instead.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

Can a Woman Love a Man?


Men often show irrational love for women, but can a woman truly love a man?

The idea of love is tossed around in our society as if it is inevitable that we will someday fall in love and stay in love our entire lives. But, only in modern times has it received such exalted status. Traditionally, it has been considered a very fickle emotion.

Going back to some of the founding religious documents of our civilization, we find that Eve is commanded to be subservient and obedient to Adam. It is interesting that Eve is not commanded to love Adam, perhaps because the Bronze Age men who wrote these documents knew that was virtually impossible. Indeed, the Laws of Game and Laws of Hypergamy are based on the fact that a women will love a man’s power, social status or financial status but not the man himself.

To answer the question if a woman can love a man, it helps to look at the history of marriage, which is today considered the ultimate act of love. But the Western idea of falling in love in order to get married and have a family is a recent one. In the past, marriages were more about financial arrangements between families than ideas of love. People used to marry young and stay together their entire lives.

They also used to have kids young, rather than waiting for the perfect “magic moment” that never comes. This, indeed is quite a contrast to today when most women have been passed around quite a few times before they marry and have children in their 30s if at all, a time when declining fertility puts reproduction at risk. In fact, a woman’s window of peak fertility extends from her teenage years to about the age of 25. After age 25 and especially age 30, it becomes statistically less and less likely she will conceive and more likely she will have complications if she does.

This practical use of marriage for the purpose of creating and sustaining the family has changed enormously into a legal ball and chain for men in modern times. It offers lots of obligations and responsibilities and almost no rights. A woman begrudgingly gives a Beta male sex in the marriage, and she can dispose of him at any time in today’s world and be awarded cash and prizes. (In the past, such a woman would have been shunned by society.) These facts help illustrate the use of men as a utility by both women and society, and also demonstrates a lack of love for men.

The history of marriage is an interesting one. The 5,000 year history of marriage along with Briffault’s Law shows us male roles in relationships are more about providing utility value, rather than a woman loving a man.


Marriage was originally intended to pass down bloodlines, property, and was used as a bargaining chip

Marriage: Practicality and Not Romance

Throughout much of human history, marriages have been arranged by families with the bride and groom having no say over the arrangement. This custom is still practiced in many societies today. Of course, having children and continuing family bloodlines, passing down property rights, and creating a stable environment for children were the reasons marriage came into existence. A dowry (financial reward) was often arranged to reward the groom for the difficult, lifelong task of taking on one of the family’s daughters as a wife.

Four thousand years ago marriage was used to preserve political power in Mesopotamia as kings married off daughters to form alliances, produce heirs, and acquire land. A couple thousand years later, the Anglo-Saxons saw marriage as a bartering chip to establish diplomatic and economic ties. This meant families wanted their children to marry someone at least as powerful and wealthy as they were.

Often, marriages took place without documentation and were based on people’s word. That is, until the 1200s when the Catholic Church declared marriage a sacrament. Following suit, Protestants later decided marriage was not a private institution. In the 1500s the Roman Catholic Church’s Council of Trent decreed marriages needed to take place in front of a priest and two witnesses to be considered valid. That decision made marriage a legal contract instead of a private arrangement, and is the beginning of the long arc that has led it to become all risk and no reward for men today.


Love was considered an emotion too fleeting to base marriages on in the past

Romantic Marriage

For most of human history, marriage was considered much too important to be based on a the fleeting emotion love. It was about men providing material value for their wives, and women producing offspring. Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage: A History puts it this way:

If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful. But that was gravy.

Marriage and love have often been considered incompatible. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate after kissing his wife in a display that was called “disgraceful!” And, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably much too dull to be loved by other women. (The man knew a Beta male when he saw one!)

The idea of loving your future wife or husband is a recent development in human history. In our own civilization, it can be traced back a thousand years to the Middle Ages and the troubadours. Troubadours wrote songs and poetry during from around 1100-1350 A.D. that deal with love and courtship. Before this time, a father had to give consent as to who his daughter would marry. A daughter not marrying who her father expected was considered a major show of disrespect to both her father and her family, for not giving him a say in the family’s bloodlines.

By the time of the Enlightenment, philosophers began to write about the pursuit of happiness, and told people to marry for love instead of wealth or status. Our notions of romantic marriage today stem from these developments.


Marriage has become all risk and no reward for men in the 21st century

Marriage Today

Marriage and the family have taken a slide in the 20th and 21st centuries, perhaps because we have lost sight of the practicality of marriage for society in trying to base the entire institution on an emotion. The age of first marriage has been rising and the divorce rate stands at over half. However, before the time of the Civil War divorce was exceedingly rare.

And up until 1970, when Governor Ronald Reagan signed the first no fault divorce act into law, women had to prove their husbands had been guilty of cruelty, desertion, or sex crimes to get a divorce. This law set off a cultural seismic wave that weakened the family. In a hilarious footnote, up until the divorce revolution women often took the stand to play the victim card and make false claims during divorce cases, showcasing women’s natural talents for dissimulation. One California Supreme Court Justice recalls:

Every day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the “innocent” spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed “cruel.”

Perhaps the reason it was so hard for obtain a divorce in the past is reflected in these facts: women are flighty, and they’re often irresponsible. Today, four out of five divorces are initiated by or caused by women. Women often divorce for spurious reasons, or as seen above, totally fabricated ones.

By 1985, in response to changing cultural mores and women playing the victim card, every state in the country had no-fault divorce laws. But, many of them have punitive laws on the books for men which can literally enslave men for life with alimony to someone they were only married to a few years. This is further detailed in Anglo American Women Are Risky to Your Wallet and Your Freedom. The law has, in effect, pedestalized women and trampled men as Anglo society has a long tradition of doing. With women getting preferential treatment in the workplace and having godlike powers in the court system, they do not have to pretend to love men anymore. An anthropological survey shows us how they act when given total power.


Like it or not, the vast majority relationships between the sexes break down to an economic transaction, men trade utility for female fertility – not love

Briffault’s Law

Adding to the case that women only want men for their utility value is Briffault’s Law, given to us by social anthropologist Robert Briffault in his epic work The Mothers:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

When combined with what we know about gaming women and hypergamy, it is easy to see a woman does not love a man as much as she uses him a resource. H.L. Menken supported Briffault’s idea:

Primitive society, like many savage societies of our own time, was probably strictly matriarchal. The mother was the head of the family. What masculine authority there was resided in the mother’s brother. He was the man of the family, and to him the children yielded respect and obedience. Their father, at best, was simply a pleasant friend who fed them and played with them; at worst, he was an indecent loafer who sponged on the mother. They belonged, not to his family, but to their mother’s. As they grew up they joined their uncle’s group of hunters, not their father’s.

This matriarchal organization of the primitive tribe, though it finds obvious evidential support in the habits of higher animals, has been questioned by many anthropologists, but of late one of them, Briffault, demonstrated its high probability in three immense volumes.

It is hard to escape the cogency of his arguments, for they are based upon an almost overwhelming accumulation of facts. They not only show that, in what we may plausibly assume about the institutions of early man and in what we know positively about the institutions of savages today, the concepts inseparable from a matriarchate color every custom and every idea: they show also that those primeval concepts still condition our own ways of thinking and doing things, so that “the societal characters of the human mind” all seem to go back “to the functions of the female and not to those of the male.”

Thus it appears that man, in his remote infancy, was by no means the lord of creation that he has since become.

For most of history, and in many other species the male is only a sperm donor who is discarded once the task of mating is completed. After a temporary move towards patriarchy and giving men roles in society other than sperm donor, the rise of feminism and the misandrist court system in Anglo America has once again legally reduced human fathers from “house-band” (he who holds the home together, or husband) to sperm donor. These lines of evidence point to one hard to swallow answer to the question posed by this article: Can a woman love a man?


Giving fathers a role in society and the family is a relatively new concept for our species; from the history of marriage to a study of anthropology to today’s sexual market, females do not associate with males that provide no benefit to them

Answering the Question

The history of marriage shows that romantic love is a recent concept to base marriage on, and marriages have endured without love in the past. It can be said that in reality marriage breaks down to economics for both sexes: Men have a surplus of strength and production capacity, that they trade for a woman’s valuable 10-15 year window of fertility. Briffault’s Law which was gleaned through enormous amounts of research also confirms this idea.

Therefore, human history and anthropological research shows female “love” for men is really more of a love for his resource provision, wealth, status, or power more than it is any emotional attachment. For if the man loses his ability to provision, or his status or power, we see it time and again that he will find himself alone because no woman wants a “loser.” We also see it with the 80/20 rule in today’s society. Women reward the minority of men with sex and attention while leaving the vast majority sexless and alone, no matter what nice guys they are. Men are a utility to women, and once the utility has been consumed she will no longer be interested.

This brings us to a harsh conclusion: From being coded into religious doxy as a commandment to Eve to serve and obey her husband Adam rather than to love him, to the fact marriage has existed as an institution that did not concern itself with love through most of history, to the fact since the sexual revolution women abandon lower status men almost completely, evidence mounts that no, women do not love men the way men love women. Men must realize this and control their emotions. Arthur Schopenhauer wrote about these fundamental differences between the sexes:

Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man.

In summary, women want the best genes, whether it be for provisioning, protection, domination or all three. They could care less about the man the genes come from, only the utility provided by them. Oscar Wilde, posthumous Red Pill man knows the time of day. He wrote: Deceiving others. That is what the world calls romance.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.