Assuming that the number of women and men is roughly equal, then:
If the top (richest + most attractive) 5% of the men have 4 wives each, they're shall we say "monopolizing" 20% of the women.
Then if the next 20% of the men have 2 wives each, that's another 40% of the women.
Then the next 40% of the men have one wife each, that's another 40% of the women.
That leaves 35% of the men with no prospect of ever marrying and having families.
That's a social problem I'd like to never have to face. Since probably 90% of the people in the United States are against legalized polygamy (a figure I pulled out of thin air)---isn't that reason enough to stop it?
Or are we obliged to submit as a society to every social experiment which somebody out there finds interesting?
So?
If they ain't man enough to earn a wife in the free market, we must have woman redistribution?
I love how so many people here wetting their shorts over polygamy are suddenly assuming ALL women would change their minds and marry rich guys. Are y'all saying women are ALL really just whores, then?
Now, some are. But Hugh can take his ho's and do whatever he wants. Who cares what rich males and prostitutes, or rich women and their studs do?!?!? Nobody seems inclined to ban James Bond's screwing around--it's just illegal AFTER he's married. I prefer just one woman who loves me, thanks. I have enough problems keeping one woman happy. But if some guy or gal wants multiple bedbunnies, and they can please 'em, what do I care?