7 ms·

To be fair this is not entirely due to social dynamics but rather due to MatchGroup companies following identical monetization patterns. They’re just capitalizi

To be fair this is not entirely due to social dynamics but rather due to MatchGroup companies following identical monetization patterns. They’re just capitalizing on male desperation and artificially widening or narrowing the gap depending on how much you pay. If you observe the actual dating climate it’s nowhere near this bad and in larger cities like NYC it can even be closer to 1:1. Rather than a social problem this is an economic problem, and as dystopian as it sounds I personally think the solution here is a non-profit or even govt sponsored dating app. It would be stupidly easy to do this and also add a whole lot more trust (bad actors may face real consequences), which is one of the other huge reasons why dating apps struggle with getting women into their app.

guerrilla 4y ago
Can we skip the dystopia and do some free-software peer-to-peer or federated solution somehow? Are ActivityPub-like protocols useful for this?
- claytonjy 4y ago
  Sounds like a great way to build a dating pool with even fewer women than the current ones.
  - darkwater 4y ago
    You made me chuckle :)
    - webinvest 4y ago
      It seems like the only valid answer
- cuuupid 4y ago
  Possibly, as disgusting as it sounds this is a pretty good use case for web3. Federate identity via blockchain to prevent bad actors, require a $1 or so NFT to use the app to prevent scammers from mass-botting, and some regular security and privacy measures = you’re good to go Expanding user graphs for matches across multiple nodes isn’t just easy, it’s actually way more efficient too. Have nodes calculate match likelihood among their users and verify they’re using the same algorithm with a simple hash. Then you’ve reduced getting matches for user X from the entire population Y (calculating distance, applying filters, and then ordering by compatibility, all expensive tasks) to getting matches for user X from nodes N that are purposely geolocated nearby reducing the search space even more. Basically not only could you do this open-source and decentralized, it would actually be more secure, safer, and way better both accuracy wise and cost wise at finding matches.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    Please tell me you are joking. The cryptolibertarian crowd is not usually seen as the most trustworthy especially when in comes to topics like dating. To put it very mildly.
  - CobrastanJorji 4y ago
    Interesting, but if the information's public, that's a no go. Nobody wants their personal information out there. And seeing all of the information before you submit your own profile is problematic, especially if the algorithm's known and reproducible. I'm afraid you'd have a system where you could declare "a great match" to any targeted account for the cost of $1. Worse, you're now snagged in the canonical smart contract problem: you can't fix problems in the algorithm anymore. How do you tune the dang thing after release?
- ryeights 4y ago
  The Fediverse will solve society’s loneliness crisis. LOL
yibg 4y ago
I don't know if that's true. From most data I've seen women's preferences skew towards a small percentage of men. i.e. most women want the same guys, which are the small minority. This leaves (making up numbers) 80% of women wanting 20% of men. Where as men tend to be less discriminating in their choices of women.
- astrange 4y ago
  What women "want" (who they start conversations with) on dating apps isn't super relevant; that just means you have to message them first. IIRC the OKCupid data showed that women rated most men poorly, but then still responded to their messages, so, like, it didn't matter.
- TopRattata 4y ago
  >This leaves (making up numbers) 80% of women wanting 20% of men. Where as men tend to be less discriminating in their choices of women. Well... kind of. Except that men also tend to all be looking at the same pool of younger women, while women tend to look for men closer to their own age, according to OKCupid's data. https://www.businessinsider.com/dataclysm-shows-men-are-attracted-to-women-in-their-20s-2014-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/dataclysm-shows-men-are-attr...
  - NoboruWataya 4y ago
    There is a big difference between what they see as "the best" and what they are looking at. If a 42 yo man sees a good looking 30 year old on a dating app he is quite unlikely to disregard her simply because she is not 20.
  - yibg 4y ago
    I think major difference being men will still message or go out with women they don't think are super attractive (but are ok), where as women won't.
- Teever 4y ago
  That may be the case in theory but it doesnt play out that way in the real world as you can tell from marriage statistics.
hammock 4y ago
Singling out dating apps, or worse a single company thinking their monopoly created the problem, is missing the forest for the trees. The social dynamic exists independent of dating apps which monetize and exploit it. The dynamic is the same in real life, for example at a nightclub where women drink for free, promoters who bring them get paid per girl, and lonely men pay $40 cover for a chance to shoot their shot
- richbell 4y ago
  > The social dynamic exists independent of dating apps which monetize and exploit it. > The dynamic is the same in real life... While I agree it isn't unique to OLD, it's vastly different to real life. In real life you can strike up a conversation with someone, become friends, develop feelings, and end up in a relationship weeks/months/years down the line.
- cuuupid 4y ago
  If dynamic in real life is 1:2 then it’s 1:1000 on dating apps. Also I would actually blame MatchGroup here, they’ve been fighting dating apps with better models for years, every company they swallow has adopted the same bad ethics (case and point Hinge), and the only company that’s managed to stay afloat away from them (Bumble) is suing them. They are most definitely a major component of the problem
  - phillipharr1s 4y ago
    What happened to Hinge?
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    There should be an antitrust lawsuit against Match.
- giantg2 4y ago
  One difference with online dating is that people tend to objective and quantify the other person more easily. In person, there tends to be fewer traits known before getting to know the person. Online, you have a dossier that causes more candidates to be rejected without a chance to get to know then. In some ways this is great because you don't waste your time, or their's, if there's a serious incompatibility. But I think it can also be used negatively when people are too picky. Sure, there are people who are too picky in real life, but those snap judgements are based just on what you can see. The absence of other information can make someone go, "Ok, I'll give them a shot even if they're average looking because maybe they're interesting/mysterious/etc".
claytonjy 4y ago
> in larger cities like NYC it can even be closer to 1:1 I don't know the stats but on places like Blind there's a lot of anecdotes about the dating scene favoring men in NYC and favoring women in SF, due to the gender balances.
- cuuupid 4y ago
  Anecdotally agree, I tend to think of SF as a special case due to the extreme gender imbalance and the general sprawled out nature of the bay area
- jobs_throwaway 4y ago
  +1 anecdotally on this If you are a straight man, the NYC dating scene is heavily in your favor. Opposite in SF
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Well, SF has a big population of gay men, which makes it more complicated than just counting men vs women.
- rngname22 4y ago
  Having seen data that most have not (believe me or don't, but if you want to take a chance on a random anon user I would say I can give a more data-informed take on this exact issue than 99.9% of people), it's really not as dramatic of an effect as lonely people would like to pretend, but even subtle as it is numerically, it does affect the feeling. An extra cup of water still feels like a world of difference if you're in a desert.
strawhatguy 4y ago
There was an article a few years ago saying that in Manhattan women outnumber men, and that led to men needing to compete less there, so yeah probably economics related. But a gov-sponsored app? No way. It's bad enough they have your whole financial/employment history (IRS), but to add your health (medicare/aid) and now dating/sexual histories too? What's left that you can keep private? Sorry, bad idea there.
- cuuupid 4y ago
  I hear you on privacy, but would you rather the data be given to MatchGroup who can sell and use that as they wish, or to the government that at least has an incredible amount of oversight and has to go thru greatly transparent lengths to move data? Having worked in both the gov and commercial spaces for a while I’d definitely say govt agencies are much, much, much more careful about how they handle sensitive information.
  - strawhatguy 4y ago
    I’ve also worked in gov. And they’re not very good at it either, OPM breach especially was pretty bad, and that’s it’s own workforce: the most protected set of people under any government. Gov does default to classifying documents, if that’s what you’re talking about, which leads to it being very secretive; the opposite of transparent. See the Biden/Trump cavalier treatment of such documents - honestly probably none are actually important anyway. But again the IRS, which deals with everyone most directly (more than say intel documents) is notoriously bad and behind the times at it’s computer systems. MatchGroup might sell your data to a company for ads and the like, but it’s opt in, and one of several. When’s the last time government did something opt-in? Who knows, the ads might be useful sometimes. Giving politicians and bureaucrats access to more information about you in another centralized db somewhere is a recipe for disaster, and even if they are angels, it’ll be a huge target for others!
  - giantg2 4y ago
    They might be more bureaucratic about your data, but I wouldn't says it's really any safer. Even places with sensitive info like OPM have been hacked. I think the IRS had a leak at one point too, but don't remember now.
goodpoint 4y ago
There's nothing dystopian in a non-profit dating service. If anything it is very dystopian that we allow for-profit companies to get involved in something so delicate!
extua 4y ago
Yeah, there's rightly a lot of concern over the power of the big social media monopolies and dating apps don't seem to get the same level of scrutiny. Ultimately you decide who you want to date, but in scenarios where most people meet through apps, those apps have a lot of influence over who meets who. Nobody knows how the matching algorithms work, all we see is the effects and a mountain of anecdotal evidence that some men are having a difficult time finding partners.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
Can't speak for NYC but this is not true for the west coast tech hubs (SF, Seattle, Portland). In these places, even 300K per year tech wealth isn't enough to make one attractive to the opposite sex. I've talked about it on other threads but where and how you earn your money matters. 300K per year as a lawyer = sexy and powerful. Even "don draper" vibes. 300K as a SWE? The moment you mention this at a bar the girl knows you went to university courses that averaged 9 men to 1 woman. They know you're likely on the ASD spectrum. The know "the odds are good but the goods are odd". This is why blind is filled with posts by high earning folks who can't ever get a single date. It's hard out there and thinking that you can beta-bux your way out of it in a west coast city isn't going to work out for you.
- quotz 4y ago
  Its because youre not a rare commodity and because society has shifted from family-building to endless dating. Big salaries work wonders for dating in relatively not that well off environments, if you had a salary like that and lived in Mobile Alabama, or like Slovakia I am sure you would be a hot cake there, but bay area or LA or NYC it doesnt really matter. What matters is whether you have the romancing vibes and whether youre an exciting partner. I highly suggest you go travel somewhere for like a few months and totally immerse yourself in the culture and try dating, it will be a paradigm shift for you. Places like Argentina or Brazil or Mexico, just make sure you research whether Americans are accepted and try dating there, it will blow your mind.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  Having a lot of money is correlated with personality traits that are attractive, because those traits facilitate accumulating money. You are conflating correlation and causation. Lucking into money because you happen to work in tech is not evidence of quality dating material ipso facto. It is not hard to get a date on the west coast on $300k as a tech person, as long as you have more to offer than just that.
quotz 4y ago
I've lived in big cities like that and I can tell you its still pretty much the same thing. Even though I hate this word but I had been what some consider a pick up artist before I got married, although a quite successful one. My n-count is in the higher double digits and I've dated a a "Miss" beauty pageant winner from an eastern european country that competed in the Miss Universe. There's endless science that supports why this happens though. In order to understand why this exists we have to go back in history. For every single man that reproduced, theres 10 other women that reproduced [1]. That means that a significant percent of the male population died without having any offspring, unlike the female population which could always find a partner. On the other hand, polyginy has always been practiced throughout the world universally pretty much everywhere in most cultures, especially by men of influence and power, unlike polyandry which is quite rare [2] The theory goes that evolutionary speaking, women try to find the best mating partner (most well-off, most influencing, most powerful etc) in order to secure the best future for their offspring to grow up healthy, without any regard whether that man already has other offspring or partners. This is also supported by the fact that women 100% know that the offspring is in fact theirs since they gave birth to them, unlike men which have zero assurance that the kid is in fact theirs. And this is why for most of recorded history premarital sex for women in civilized societies was a big no no up until like the 1950s that started to change in the western world. So dating apps create this perfect environment where choice is abundant, so men take their shot on everybody, and girls only choose the most handsomest, most well-off guys on there. Its similar to a big high school environment, where most of the popular pretty girls from all years and generations would date a dozen guys in the sports teams and just swap around every few months. In high school and college I was in a similar situation, and girls were in fact excited that I was so experienced and that I was seeing other girls at the same time. On dating apps most men get somewhere like 0-4 matches a week and most women get somewhere like 100-1000. That’s a 25x difference best-case scenario and often it’s over 100x. Which is kind of insane considering there are about 50/50 men to women ratio in real life. People say “the 20% top men get 80% of matches” but it’s worse than that. The 20% top men may get something reasonable like 3-4 matches a day, but your average women is getting something crazy like 1 match every 15 minutes. Because a lot of men like to swipe right on nearly everyone and buy passes which get them unlimited swipes. And most women get extremely choosy and swipe right on only the super handsome nearly-perfect men, but you can’t even blame them when they have literally 1,000 matches. So dating apps are a waste of time, much better to go out and talk to girls in real life and get yourself out of the synthetic environment apps like Tinder create. You'll have much easier time. [1] https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

guerrilla 4y ago

Can we skip the dystopia and do some free-software peer-to-peer or federated solution somehow? Are ActivityPub-like protocols useful for this?

claytonjy 4y ago
Sounds like a great way to build a dating pool with even fewer women than the current ones.
- darkwater 4y ago
  You made me chuckle :)
  - webinvest 4y ago
    It seems like the only valid answer
cuuupid 4y ago
Possibly, as disgusting as it sounds this is a pretty good use case for web3. Federate identity via blockchain to prevent bad actors, require a $1 or so NFT to use the app to prevent scammers from mass-botting, and some regular security and privacy measures = you’re good to go Expanding user graphs for matches across multiple nodes isn’t just easy, it’s actually way more efficient too. Have nodes calculate match likelihood among their users and verify they’re using the same algorithm with a simple hash. Then you’ve reduced getting matches for user X from the entire population Y (calculating distance, applying filters, and then ordering by compatibility, all expensive tasks) to getting matches for user X from nodes N that are purposely geolocated nearby reducing the search space even more. Basically not only could you do this open-source and decentralized, it would actually be more secure, safer, and way better both accuracy wise and cost wise at finding matches.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  Please tell me you are joking. The cryptolibertarian crowd is not usually seen as the most trustworthy especially when in comes to topics like dating. To put it very mildly.
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  Interesting, but if the information's public, that's a no go. Nobody wants their personal information out there. And seeing all of the information before you submit your own profile is problematic, especially if the algorithm's known and reproducible. I'm afraid you'd have a system where you could declare "a great match" to any targeted account for the cost of $1. Worse, you're now snagged in the canonical smart contract problem: you can't fix problems in the algorithm anymore. How do you tune the dang thing after release?
ryeights 4y ago
The Fediverse will solve society’s loneliness crisis. LOL

yibg 4y ago

I don't know if that's true. From most data I've seen women's preferences skew towards a small percentage of men. i.e. most women want the same guys, which are the small minority. This leaves (making up numbers) 80% of women wanting 20% of men. Where as men tend to be less discriminating in their choices of women.

astrange 4y ago
What women "want" (who they start conversations with) on dating apps isn't super relevant; that just means you have to message them first. IIRC the OKCupid data showed that women rated most men poorly, but then still responded to their messages, so, like, it didn't matter.
TopRattata 4y ago
>This leaves (making up numbers) 80% of women wanting 20% of men. Where as men tend to be less discriminating in their choices of women. Well... kind of. Except that men also tend to all be looking at the same pool of younger women, while women tend to look for men closer to their own age, according to OKCupid's data. https://www.businessinsider.com/dataclysm-shows-men-are-attracted-to-women-in-their-20s-2014-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/dataclysm-shows-men-are-attr...
- NoboruWataya 4y ago
  There is a big difference between what they see as "the best" and what they are looking at. If a 42 yo man sees a good looking 30 year old on a dating app he is quite unlikely to disregard her simply because she is not 20.
- yibg 4y ago
  I think major difference being men will still message or go out with women they don't think are super attractive (but are ok), where as women won't.
Teever 4y ago
That may be the case in theory but it doesnt play out that way in the real world as you can tell from marriage statistics.

hammock 4y ago

Singling out dating apps, or worse a single company thinking their monopoly created the problem, is missing the forest for the trees. The social dynamic exists independent of dating apps which monetize and exploit it. The dynamic is the same in real life, for example at a nightclub where women drink for free, promoters who bring them get paid per girl, and lonely men pay $40 cover for a chance to shoot their shot

richbell 4y ago
> The social dynamic exists independent of dating apps which monetize and exploit it. > The dynamic is the same in real life... While I agree it isn't unique to OLD, it's vastly different to real life. In real life you can strike up a conversation with someone, become friends, develop feelings, and end up in a relationship weeks/months/years down the line.
cuuupid 4y ago
If dynamic in real life is 1:2 then it’s 1:1000 on dating apps. Also I would actually blame MatchGroup here, they’ve been fighting dating apps with better models for years, every company they swallow has adopted the same bad ethics (case and point Hinge), and the only company that’s managed to stay afloat away from them (Bumble) is suing them. They are most definitely a major component of the problem
- phillipharr1s 4y ago
  What happened to Hinge?
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  There should be an antitrust lawsuit against Match.
giantg2 4y ago
One difference with online dating is that people tend to objective and quantify the other person more easily. In person, there tends to be fewer traits known before getting to know the person. Online, you have a dossier that causes more candidates to be rejected without a chance to get to know then. In some ways this is great because you don't waste your time, or their's, if there's a serious incompatibility. But I think it can also be used negatively when people are too picky. Sure, there are people who are too picky in real life, but those snap judgements are based just on what you can see. The absence of other information can make someone go, "Ok, I'll give them a shot even if they're average looking because maybe they're interesting/mysterious/etc".

claytonjy 4y ago

> in larger cities like NYC it can even be closer to 1:1 I don't know the stats but on places like Blind there's a lot of anecdotes about the dating scene favoring men in NYC and favoring women in SF, due to the gender balances.

cuuupid 4y ago
Anecdotally agree, I tend to think of SF as a special case due to the extreme gender imbalance and the general sprawled out nature of the bay area
jobs_throwaway 4y ago
+1 anecdotally on this If you are a straight man, the NYC dating scene is heavily in your favor. Opposite in SF
BurningFrog 4y ago
Well, SF has a big population of gay men, which makes it more complicated than just counting men vs women.
rngname22 4y ago
Having seen data that most have not (believe me or don't, but if you want to take a chance on a random anon user I would say I can give a more data-informed take on this exact issue than 99.9% of people), it's really not as dramatic of an effect as lonely people would like to pretend, but even subtle as it is numerically, it does affect the feeling. An extra cup of water still feels like a world of difference if you're in a desert.

strawhatguy 4y ago

There was an article a few years ago saying that in Manhattan women outnumber men, and that led to men needing to compete less there, so yeah probably economics related. But a gov-sponsored app? No way. It's bad enough they have your whole financial/employment history (IRS), but to add your health (medicare/aid) and now dating/sexual histories too? What's left that you can keep private? Sorry, bad idea there.

cuuupid 4y ago
I hear you on privacy, but would you rather the data be given to MatchGroup who can sell and use that as they wish, or to the government that at least has an incredible amount of oversight and has to go thru greatly transparent lengths to move data? Having worked in both the gov and commercial spaces for a while I’d definitely say govt agencies are much, much, much more careful about how they handle sensitive information.
- strawhatguy 4y ago
  I’ve also worked in gov. And they’re not very good at it either, OPM breach especially was pretty bad, and that’s it’s own workforce: the most protected set of people under any government. Gov does default to classifying documents, if that’s what you’re talking about, which leads to it being very secretive; the opposite of transparent. See the Biden/Trump cavalier treatment of such documents - honestly probably none are actually important anyway. But again the IRS, which deals with everyone most directly (more than say intel documents) is notoriously bad and behind the times at it’s computer systems. MatchGroup might sell your data to a company for ads and the like, but it’s opt in, and one of several. When’s the last time government did something opt-in? Who knows, the ads might be useful sometimes. Giving politicians and bureaucrats access to more information about you in another centralized db somewhere is a recipe for disaster, and even if they are angels, it’ll be a huge target for others!
- giantg2 4y ago
  They might be more bureaucratic about your data, but I wouldn't says it's really any safer. Even places with sensitive info like OPM have been hacked. I think the IRS had a leak at one point too, but don't remember now.

goodpoint 4y ago

There's nothing dystopian in a non-profit dating service. If anything it is very dystopian that we allow for-profit companies to get involved in something so delicate!

extua 4y ago

Yeah, there's rightly a lot of concern over the power of the big social media monopolies and dating apps don't seem to get the same level of scrutiny. Ultimately you decide who you want to date, but in scenarios where most people meet through apps, those apps have a lot of influence over who meets who. Nobody knows how the matching algorithms work, all we see is the effects and a mountain of anecdotal evidence that some men are having a difficult time finding partners.

Der_Einzige 4y ago

Can't speak for NYC but this is not true for the west coast tech hubs (SF, Seattle, Portland). In these places, even 300K per year tech wealth isn't enough to make one attractive to the opposite sex. I've talked about it on other threads but where and how you earn your money matters. 300K per year as a lawyer = sexy and powerful. Even "don draper" vibes. 300K as a SWE? The moment you mention this at a bar the girl knows you went to university courses that averaged 9 men to 1 woman. They know you're likely on the ASD spectrum. The know "the odds are good but the goods are odd". This is why blind is filled with posts by high earning folks who can't ever get a single date. It's hard out there and thinking that you can beta-bux your way out of it in a west coast city isn't going to work out for you.

quotz 4y ago
Its because youre not a rare commodity and because society has shifted from family-building to endless dating. Big salaries work wonders for dating in relatively not that well off environments, if you had a salary like that and lived in Mobile Alabama, or like Slovakia I am sure you would be a hot cake there, but bay area or LA or NYC it doesnt really matter. What matters is whether you have the romancing vibes and whether youre an exciting partner. I highly suggest you go travel somewhere for like a few months and totally immerse yourself in the culture and try dating, it will be a paradigm shift for you. Places like Argentina or Brazil or Mexico, just make sure you research whether Americans are accepted and try dating there, it will blow your mind.
jandrewrogers 4y ago
Having a lot of money is correlated with personality traits that are attractive, because those traits facilitate accumulating money. You are conflating correlation and causation. Lucking into money because you happen to work in tech is not evidence of quality dating material ipso facto. It is not hard to get a date on the west coast on $300k as a tech person, as long as you have more to offer than just that.

quotz 4y ago

I've lived in big cities like that and I can tell you its still pretty much the same thing. Even though I hate this word but I had been what some consider a pick up artist before I got married, although a quite successful one. My n-count is in the higher double digits and I've dated a a "Miss" beauty pageant winner from an eastern european country that competed in the Miss Universe. There's endless science that supports why this happens though. In order to understand why this exists we have to go back in history. For every single man that reproduced, theres 10 other women that reproduced [1]. That means that a significant percent of the male population died without having any offspring, unlike the female population which could always find a partner. On the other hand, polyginy has always been practiced throughout the world universally pretty much everywhere in most cultures, especially by men of influence and power, unlike polyandry which is quite rare [2] The theory goes that evolutionary speaking, women try to find the best mating partner (most well-off, most influencing, most powerful etc) in order to secure the best future for their offspring to grow up healthy, without any regard whether that man already has other offspring or partners. This is also supported by the fact that women 100% know that the offspring is in fact theirs since they gave birth to them, unlike men which have zero assurance that the kid is in fact theirs. And this is why for most of recorded history premarital sex for women in civilized societies was a big no no up until like the 1950s that started to change in the western world. So dating apps create this perfect environment where choice is abundant, so men take their shot on everybody, and girls only choose the most handsomest, most well-off guys on there. Its similar to a big high school environment, where most of the popular pretty girls from all years and generations would date a dozen guys in the sports teams and just swap around every few months. In high school and college I was in a similar situation, and girls were in fact excited that I was so experienced and that I was seeing other girls at the same time. On dating apps most men get somewhere like 0-4 matches a week and most women get somewhere like 100-1000. That’s a 25x difference best-case scenario and often it’s over 100x. Which is kind of insane considering there are about 50/50 men to women ratio in real life. People say “the 20% top men get 80% of matches” but it’s worse than that. The 20% top men may get something reasonable like 3-4 matches a day, but your average women is getting something crazy like 1 match every 15 minutes. Because a lot of men like to swipe right on nearly everyone and buy passes which get them unlimited swipes. And most women get extremely choosy and swipe right on only the super handsome nearly-perfect men, but you can’t even blame them when they have literally 1,000 matches. So dating apps are a waste of time, much better to go out and talk to girls in real life and get yourself out of the synthetic environment apps like Tinder create. You'll have much easier time. [1] https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy