indian? maybe. Vedic? no

every caste could marry sideways or downward

a brahmin could take a brahmin, kshatriya, vaisya and sudra for a wife. kshatriya could take kshatriya, vaisya and sudra, vaisya could take vaisya and sudra, sudra could have only one sudra

could I simulate polygamy by becoming a sperm donor

so the top/best had up to 4 wives and then each worse caste had progressively fewer

i don't want to deal with the extra females and kids

and it let the brahmins scalp the best genes off the lower ranks

although I take issue with that to an extent

No I mean

that practice is why indians are brown today instead of nordic like when they began

strictly metaphysically speaking

the concept of marriage itself is emasculating

women had to be monogamous

and exists only as a representation of the sacred union

so for a man to have multiple wives implies a sense of libertinism precisely for women, who get too much weight around household, and worst of all, around males

in mormonism it's a slightly different system, elaborated on here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132

tldr: men can have an unlimited number of wives, but if they do anything bad then their wives are confiscated and given to their moral superiors

they kick the man out of the church and confiscate his women and then breed new better men in his place

the concept of marriage itself is emasculating, your masterpiece @The Enlightened Shepherd

I don't think marriage is emasculating, men emasculate themselves by being pussies

they will not order their wives around or discipline their kids

it is to every wise man that ever lived

i cannot think of a peson i appreciate who didn't have a word or two against marriage

obviously, when given "relief"

marriage basically exists for the man to formally claim ownership of his women

injected with drugs?

that is the purpose of it, staking out your property

which includes your house, your females, your children

one of the only things islam got right in my eyes was to overtly refer to women as property

yes, but we cannot concieve any sensible idea of marriage without an explicitly drawn out institution

it could be religious that you speakof

it doesn't refer to women as property

or feudal

at all

oh

then the one good thing about it was a misunderstanding

or anything based on a hierarchy, an imposition, structuring

neither does the d&c

the reason why marriage completely fails in modernity

is because modernity thinks legal binding is a substitute for a real, organic, and objective structure, which is exercised, not imagined

brahminism says the wife must be radiantly beautiful, or else the husband will not be attracted and children will not be born and the family will be doomed to obscurity. it also says the woman must worship the man as a god, and not even speak the name of another male so long as he lives