This is the reality, and I don't really care much about the moralizing about it, because you can't destroy the structures supporting monogamy at scale and then complain when something else replaces it. Everyone who says "polygyny is bad" doesn't seem to want to accept over half of the population not getting married and reproducing because the dating market is destroyed is far worse. I have been discussing this trend for a year, and every, literally every critique I have seen of the structure (which has much to criticize) is either: a) describing circumstances that are already happening (i.e. no young men are finding women because the women are all taken by the top guys) b) conflating polygyny with 3rd world culture / attitudes towards women in general that would not apply to how it played out in the west Now, is the fact that polygyny is coming a sign of our degraded culture? In most ways yes (though powerful men have usually had mistresses when they couldn't make them wives). Is it a cause of the degraded culture? No. And if you put a gun to my head and asked me if it is more likely to harm society than the current churn of casual hook ups, my answer would be no. My answer would be that it probably creates more structure during a time when things are falling apart, and helps monogamous marriages more than it harms them, by reducing the number of "ruined women" and changing the paradigms and power dynamics that have been collapsing that institution. So people can be mad about it, but they are going to have to get over the optics. Right now you have women (including women in churches) spending a decade sleeping around with random guys, yet it's "out of sight" so Christians pretend it's not happening, and that there aren't real consequences to it. Sorry, this is moral cowardice to me. We elevated women and let them choose the men they wanted, and it turned out that they all wanted the same men. Because that is actually female nature. Men did not create these circumstances, women did, by their own choices. So some tradeoffs will have to be accepted. Right now the vast majority of women are deciding in the face of the market pressures that they will remain single rather than marry, since the men they want to marry are generally taken. And probably, that is the choice most women will continue to take, because even if they were willing to be with a married man - the men's wives would not be willing to share him with them. But even without the inevitable legal reforms coming around marriage this next 5-10 years, there are going to be circumstances where some of these single women fit in with these married couples. Where the trust and friendship is there. These women are going to join these marriages, and everyone - not just the man - will win. That's the "sister wife" iteration of polygyny, and it will generally be more emotionally healthy and mature. But you will also see lower trust, more transactional versions occur among the more wealthy men as well - the women will have different households, there will be more competition. Think Elon Musk style "concubines," unlike the above (which will be a thing for mostly 7 figure net worth guys). This will only apply for guys with 8+ figures. But at the end of the day, regardless of the form, there will at least be children. There will at least be some mutual obligations towards each other. I struggle to see how it's worse than what we have now.