Polygamy

[Divinus Arma]

So, I was reading Newsweek (March 20, 2006 issue, pg. 52) and there was an article on Polygamist activists, mostly females.

I was kind of interested in the topic since I never gave the topic any serious thought. From a guy's perspective, there are some interesting pros and cons. The ability to mate with multiple females is obvioulsy was springs forth to most guy's minds. But think about the cons! Multiple emotions to contend with, the group empowering effect some women have, the shopping sprees. Pretty expensive and emotionally taxing.

I then thought about it from the female perspective, what could be the advantages for the girls? Well, from a little internet research it turns out there are many pros. For example, househole responsibilities are divided so women actually have to do less work over all. Also, if one women is career-minded, she can pursue her career without having to worry about leaving her child with day care. Plus, maybe it wouldn't be so expensive provided they all shared the same roof. After all, cooking for more people doesn't get all that much more expensive, and the mortgage wouldn't change. There is also apparently some benefit of having close female relationships in an extended family like that. The cons for the female are obvious: sharing the guy. But so long as the guy doesn't play favorites and the family only includes as many wives as can be loved (maybe only two).


Seems there is some societal benefit as well. First of all, in many cultures infant girls are killed because they do not provide the benefit of a male child. Knowing that the girl will have a better chance of finding a husband may reduce this. Secondly, the gene pool of humanity is changed for the better because the most capable men will be the ones able to take in multiple wives. The genetically inferior men are left unable to procreate and pass along their deficiencies.

There may be a benefit to the economy as well, since more women will be free from child-rearing to work, pursue education, and contribute to social improvements. Not to mention that more money will be free in the household to be spent since many of the costs associated with traditional marriages will be reduced: more efficient use of food supply and natural resources, no money being spent on child care or housekeeping.

Also, it seems that nature has kind of supported this concept. The menstrual cycles of women living in close quarters all quickly adjust to a common time. This seems to favor procreation in that the man is able to avoid non-stop PMS; he only has to worry about a few days each month. The common cycle also means that the women will be fertile at the same time, thus creating an atmosphere of...erm..excitement, thus encouraging intercourse. This also means that the women can share the burdens of pregnancy and child-rearing. And lastly, should a wife be unable to have children, the multiple wives in the relationship ensure that the geetically strong male is able to procreate with a fertile female.

I was thought it was just one of those things that society shuns for morality reasons but there is biblical precedent to it. It seems we have adopted the traditional family unit just like the monkey-banana problem.

[BigTex]

Originally posted by Divinus Arma
Seems there is some societal benefit as well. First of all, in many cultures infant girls are killed because they do not provide the benefit of a male child. Knowing that the girl will have a better chance of finding a husband may reduce this. Secondly, the gene pool of humanity is changed for the better because the most capable men will be the ones able to take in multiple wives. The genetically inferior men are left unable to procreate and pass along their deficiencies.

That wouldnt always work. For the most part there are usually many more single women then single men. In London the ratio is 1 single man to 5 single women, kinda lopsided, thus "genetically inferrior men" would still be able to procreate. Also you should remember all of our arts, our sciences, our philosophies were started by those "genetically inferrior men" trying to get a leg up on the physically strong in our societys.

Since we where once a tribal based society of course there would be benefits to having multiple women/men around. Humans as a species have a pretty low chance of getting pregnant each go at it, same with most animals who have a tribal like social structure. Lions will often attempt to have sex around 20 times a day, odd fact I think might help with your other explanations.

Get R Done.

[Divinus Arma]

That wouldnt always work. For the most part there are usually many more single women then single men. In London the ratio is 1 single man to 5 single women, kinda lopsided, thus "genetically inferrior men" would still be able to procreate. Also you should remember all of our arts, our sciences, our philosophies were started by those "genetically inferrior men" trying to get a leg up on the physically strong in our societys.

Since we where once a tribal based society of course there would be benefits to having multiple women/men around. Humans as a species have a pretty low chance of getting pregnant each go at it, same with most animals who have a tribal like social structure. Lions will often attempt to have sex around 20 times a day, odd fact I think might help with your other explanations.

Actually, your arguments support Polygamy. 5 women to 1 man? That's alot of unused wombs walking around.

As for gentically superior, I don't mean just strength. Meatheads don't rule the world, the intelectuals do. An individual who is able to support a larger family beacuse of is superior skill his far more important than "me big, look mean". I agree with you and point out that these people you note are the genetically superior.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Seems there is some societal benefit as well. First of all, in many cultures infant girls are killed because they do not provide the benefit of a male child. Knowing that the girl will have a better chance of finding a husband may reduce this. Secondly, the gene pool of humanity is changed for the better because the most capable men will be the ones able to take in multiple wives. The genetically inferior men are left unable to procreate and pass along their deficiencies.

The problem is, in civilization genetically inferior men more often win. Those who are inferior by being cause of violence and disorder, hatred and destruction, are the ones who are favored, as it is now. It will be worse if those men take five wives and fewer percent of the men take part in the mating. As long as the basics of society power is such a disaster, there's no benefit in polygamy. I mean, people with sick minds and weak bodies, easy to get diseases and so on and so forth get chicks easily because they have money, and we all know how carelessly and arbitrarily money is distributed - without justice or reason.

Besides unused wombs that's a pretty strange idea considering that we have already overpopulated earth some thousand times too much. But I've learnt that civilized people consider post-natal abortion the best method of birth control, like in Rwanda when they ran out of food, killing each others with primitive farming tools - spades, sharp rocks, little rusty knives. Long live progress and civilization!

[BigTex]

Actually, your arguments support Polygamy. 5 women to 1 man? That's alot of unused wombs walking around.

As for gentically superior, I don't mean just strength. Meatheads don't rule the world, the intelectuals do. An individual who is able to support a larger family beacuse of is superior skill his far more important than "me big, look mean". I agree with you and point out that these people you note are the genetically superior.

I was trying to support your idea of polygamy. I was just trying to point out that it wouldnt necesarily clear out the genetically inferior. Most people were from societies that supported polygamy till we had monotheism interveign, guess god wanted all your virginians.

Besides unused wombs that's a pretty strange idea considering that we have already overpopulated earth some thousand times too much. But I've learnt that civilized people consider post-natal abortion the best method of birth control, like in Rwanda when they ran out of food, killing each others with primitive farming tools - spades, sharp rocks, little rusty knives. Long live progress and civilization!

The earth is hardly overpopulated. You could currently fit everyone in the world into the state limit of Texas and have less of a population density then New York. The idea that we cant support that size of a population is ludacris also. If we could finally kill this idea of "organic" food then there would be plenty of food. Most farmers arent using the tools that will give them the largest yeilds. Gps, computers and genetic modification have massively helped the yeilds of farmers.

[LeftEyeNine]

"I can not get satisfied with one spouse, I want to taste so many others however I am sick of living with fear of getting caught"

Yes, mankind can really theorize BS when it is what they want. "Look I have a point". My ***, you have a ****, not a point for sure, and you are exagerrating its existence, that's the whole story.

[yesdachi]

They say “behind every great man is a great woman” just think if I had a dozen great women behind me, I’d be the greatest man alive. Well, at least until someone had 13 wives.

I honestly wouldn’t have a problem with it. It was a case on Boston Legal a few weeks ago, seemed to work for them; of course it could have been TV magic.

In a world filled with gays, lesbians, transsexuals and every other alternative lifestyle I don’t think most people would care much either. “that kid has two mommies… and a daddy” sounds better to me than “that kid has two daddies” or “that kid has a 70 year old grandpa who is now a woman”. It’s just a matter of being socially acceptable… and finding an insurance company that will offer a “family” plan.

[Duke Malcolm]

The two things that separate barbarians from civilised folks are the number of wives one has and the way one holds a knife...

[Rodion Romanovich]

The earth is hardly overpopulated. You could currently fit everyone in the world into the state limit of Texas and have less of a population density then New York. The idea that we cant support that size of a population is ludacris also. If we could finally kill this idea of "organic" food then there would be plenty of food. Most farmers arent using the tools that will give them the largest yeilds. Gps, computers and genetic modification have massively helped the yeilds of farmers.

Among other things you forget eutrophication, which makes it impossible to get non-poisonous water. In the future we'll get to choose between getting pure water or food for everyone, because they are mutually exclusive. Actually I don't know why I care about this matter, trying to teach people who don't understand it is like throwing pearls at swines. A mankind who are getting more and more immoral every day, and more and more controlled by mutated versions of their animalistic urges, while loudly trumpeting their degree of civilization and rationalism, truly deserves to kill itself. I can't stop the fools, neither can anybody else. So go ahead and I hope you have fun! We can always squeeze in more humans until we can't walk because entire earth is a single mass of people who can't move! Obviously that's what God means in Genesis when he says: "fill up earth". Of course, it can't have been an instruction to Noah to reestablish the world order that existed before the flood - which included some million humans on earth. Of course, man's seed must become as numerous as the stars in the sky, or we'll displease God! And now that science has taught us that the stars in the sky aren't around one million, but almost infinite in numbers, that means we've thanks to our civilization and wisdom realized that God didn't mean one million when he said that, but inifity! Thanks to our scientific progress, we can finally please him the way we couldn't before! Obviously God didn't unleash the flood because mankind was sinful and overpopulated, but because they didn't have enough sex and reproduction! Let's raise ourself to the level of the glorious insects, and multiply like them! Deus vult!

[Major Robert Dump]

Women are too jealous. It wouldnt work, they would kill each other, or the man. And if we revert back to primal instinct then its also primal instinct to upgrade to new improved 22 year old wives as soon as the old wives hit 40, so women would not see any security in such an arrangment in the longterm and would be less likely to enter.

Imagine having to go through a divorce with 5 wives, you'd be living in a cardboard box.

I think something like this would only work with a man who was filthy rich and only courted girls from trailer parks, or, in backwards, stone age societies where the women worship the men and take things like the bible literally and make butter all day.

[yesdachi]

I think something like this would only work with a man who was filthy rich and only courted girls from trailer parks, or, in backwards, stone age societies where the women worship the men and take things like the bible literally and make butter all day.

Mmmmm... Butter.

[doc_bean]

Even in countries where it is allowed, polygamy is a marginal phenomena. There just aren't enough women to make it work on a large scale.

On a sidenote, I heard there were places in india where one woman could have several husbands...

[Banquo's Ghost]

On a sidenote, I heard there were places in india where one woman could have several husbands...

Polyandry is found in Tibet, and I believe in parts of Nepal. Linky

[Faust|]

That would be a funny sight, watching your successful intellectual trying to handle 5 beautiful women. That right there would be an argument itself against polygamy in modernized nations.

[GoreBag]

On a sidenote, I heard there were places in india where one woman could have several husbands...

That is also polygamy, specifically polyandry. DA's example deals only with polygyny...for some reason.

I wholeheartedly support polygamy in marriage and lifestyle. I just don't support Mormonism. There was a report published up here a while ago that said that maintaining the status quo of polygamy (read: the illegality) would be unconstitutional. Things may change if the Mormons make enough noise.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

That is also polygamy, specifically polyandry. DA's example deals only with polygyny...for some reason.

I wholeheartedly support polygamy in marriage and lifestyle. I just don't support Mormonism. There was a report published up here a while ago that said that maintaining the status quo of polygamy (read: the illegality) would be unconstitutional. Things may change if the Mormons make enough noise.

I thought that mormans have stopped practicing polygamy?

[GoreBag]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has, but they're a split-off group of the main Mormon church, however more popular than the main church that the CoJCoLDS (heh...) has grown. There are also a great deal of churches split off from the big one with the long name, so it's hard to track how many Mormon polygamists there are besides looking into the main church.

In any case, the USA has plenty of them in the Midwest, often fewer than investigations reveal because of the sensitive, illegal nature of the problem, which tends to form closed communities. Canada's largest Mormon polygamist settlement numbers at around 3000 people, somewhere in BC.

[Papewaio]

On the other side of the debate are countries where men outnumber women:

Men 'can only marry with sister'

LONG, twirling moustaches and bejewelled daggers are no longer enough for a man seeking to marry in India's desert state of Rajasthan, long considered a land of fearless warriors.

But if he is lucky enough to have a sister, he can relax, a newspaper report said.
A declining sex ratio in the state is prompting a girl's parents to spurn offers of marriage from men unless the potential groom's family also has a marriageable daughter for their son, the Sunday Express said.

"Around 30 per cent of the marriages in the past year in Shekhawati region of Rajasthan were fixed on this swap system," local lawmaker Rajendra Chauhan said.

The sex ratio in many of Rajasthan's districts has dropped to 922 girls for every 1000 boys, according to the last census. In one or two villages, it has plummeted to less than 500, the paper reported.

[Byzantine Prince]

Polygamy is highly immoral in essence.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Polygamy is highly immoral in essence.

So you support it?

[Shaka_Khan]

So you support it?

On the other side of the debate are countries where men outnumber women:...

In the US, women outnumber men. Hmm...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In the US, women outnumber men. Hmm...

The extra women are all 60+ though


Polygamy works for some. Polyamory isn't that uncommon.

[LeftEyeNine]

OT, Congrats Sasaki, just a couple of hours before you were an assistant mod yet.

[Byzantine Prince]

I think most men fantasize of having 5 or 6 *beautiful* women as wives, but that will statistically not be the case at all. So there are no real pros here.

No I don't support polygamy. It's wrong in essence.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Multiple emotions to contend with, the group empowering effect some women have, the shopping sprees. Pretty expensive and emotionally taxing.

A little bit of gender stereotyping here DA.

For example, household responsibilities are divided so women actually have to do less work over all.

I can't help but think that it would be better for the woman to divide household responsibilities with her husband and children!

But so long as the guy doesn't play favorites and the family only includes as many wives as can be loved (maybe only two).

I think for most men, "playing favourites" would be inevitable.

Also, it seems that nature has kind of supported this concept. The menstrual cycles of women living in close quarters all quickly adjust to a common time. This seems to favor procreation in that the man is able to avoid non-stop PMS; he only has to worry about a few days each month. The common cycle also means that the women will be fertile at the same time, thus creating an atmosphere of...erm..excitement, thus encouraging intercourse.

I think if nature was supporting the idea, there would be significantly more girl babies than boy babies born and women's menstrual cycles would not synchronise. In fact human sexuality argues that monogamy is more natural; sex when not fertile is unusual and this can be seen as increasing bonding between sexual partners. I am not being idealistic here - adultery is natural too.

Secondly, the gene pool of humanity is changed for the better because the most capable men will be the ones able to take in multiple wives. The genetically inferior men are left unable to procreate and pass along their deficiencies.

Capable in this context only means capable of attracting multiple mates. I don't think this necessarily means better citizens. Also, don't forget the women carry genes and selection pressures for them is reduced in this system.

[Watchman]

Stuff the genetics anyway. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has undergone no meaningful biological changes since its developement. It's cultural evolution all the way these days, bay-bee. 'Sides, "the genetically inferior men are left unable to procreate and pass along their deficiencies" falls foul of the empirical fact of to my knowledge the amount of herediatry diseases, birth defects etc. being quite proportionally stable as long as you filter out things like environmental effects or interbreeding (comparatively historically isolated and small populations, such as the Finns, tend to develop their own curious set of genetical quirks; heredity researchers are apparently finding us a bit of a boon...). In other words, if that claim had any real basis it would follow that the overall human gene pool was improving and the proportional number of assorted biological flaws that now pop up should be slowly going down. But at least I'm entirely unaware of any factual proof of this.

And at the rate it's going with research into genetic engineering, natural evolution just might go obsolete one day too...

Polygamy is highly immoral in essence.

So you support it?

For some reason this quip amuses me to no end.

Kaiser gets a brownie point.

[Avicenna]

Everyone has genetical deficiencies, with the way humans have managed to keep so many alive for so long, every one of us is bound to have some, too late for that now.

The stars are not infinite. The universe is finite, so therefore the stars must be as well.

[Watchman]

A good part of those "deficiencies" are probably unsuccesful mutations anyway. The process is constantly experimenting with subtly new combinations, most of which fall flat or through.

Introducing the enzyme (or whatever) to digest lactose was a pretty useful one, though. Too bad it's not universal, and deficiencies pop up even in populations that normally have it.

[Papewaio]

[QUOTE=Watchman]Stuff the genetics anyway. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has undergone no meaningful biological changes since its developement.QUOTE]

Isn't that a tautology?

After all if it had gone through meaningful biological changes it would not be the same species...

[Watchman]

*shrug* All I know is we're apparently still essentially the same as our first ancestors identifiable as H.S.S., with no real differences beyond the cosmetic.

But then, some other species have not besides the odd environmentally adapted spin-off undergone any fundamental changes in millions of years...