Verified by 
34COMMENTS
Is there not a surplus of women to men in this developed country (USA)?
THE BASICS
Both candidates for the presidency owe their very existence to polygamy (1). President Obama’s father belonged to the polygamous Luo tribe. Mitt Romney’s paternal great grandfathers moved to Mexico to continue the Mormon practice of polygamy then outlawed in the U.S. So the time is ripe to ask what advantages polygamy has over monogamy.
Although plural marriage is banned in developed countries, it is surprisingly common, and popular, elsewhere with 55 percent of women sharing their husbands in Benin and an average of 16 percent of women doing so in less developed nations (2). Polygamy may be detested in developed countries but it is practiced to some degree in most societies studied by anthropologists. What did polygamy do for the Obamas and the Romneys that they could not accomplish with monogamy?
Studies in animal behavior show that polygynous mating systems (i.e., one male mating with several females) have at least three possible advantages.
Polygamy: a bird’s eye view
There are three basic reasons for polygyny in birds. First, there may be a scarcity of adult males. Second, some males may have much better genes than others which is particularly important for populations where there is a heavy load of diseases and parasites to which resistance is genetically heritable. Third, females do better by sharing a mate who defends a good territory (with plenty of food and cover) than they would by opting to be the single mate in a bad territory.
So much for birds! Do humans choose polygamy for similar reasons?
My research on 32 countries where polygamy is practiced by at least five percent of married women yielded answers (2). Polygamy increased where there was a scarcity of males in the population (first reason for birds).
Countries having a heavy infectious disease load had many more polygamous marriages (second reason for birds.) Women in disease-prone countries may prefer highly disease-resistant (i.e., physically attractive) men to father their offspring leaving less desirable men without mates. There is independent evidence that women care more about physical attractiveness in these countries and have a higher sex drive (3).
Having economic resources facilitates polygamy for humans consistent with resource-defense polygyny in birds (reason number 3). Thus, there were more polygamous wives in countries where men could monopolize wealth whether in terms of earned income or farm land (analogous to animal territories.) My findings were not new: they corroborated earlier research but used better data.
So humans turn to multiple marriage for the same three basic reasons that birds do (scarcity of males, selection for disease resistant genes, and defense of breeding territory and its economic equivalents.)
In my study, I also evaluated a number of “explanations” for polygamy that are routinely trotted out by social scientists and other observers in developed countries who find polygamy repulsive.
Contrary to popular assumptions, multiple marriage had nothing to do with poverty, backwardness, or oppression of women (e.g., acceptance of wife-beating) in my study. Of course that begs the question as to why polygamy survives mostly in under developed countries close to the equator and why it is so unpopular in developed countries (4, see map.)
Why the developed world hates polygamy
At least three factors are critical. First, instead of a scarcity of males, developed countries have an excess thanks to better public health that saves more males than females. Second, colder winters made it impossible historically for mothers to raise children without substantial help from their husbands.
The most important reason that polygamy is out of place in the modern world is that it works best in agricultural societies where children contribute to farm labor and care of livestock (4).
Developed countries are highly urbanized and it is very difficult to raise large families in cities because children are a huge drain on finances that lasts for two decades thanks to the extent of modern education. In agricultural societies, by contrast, children defray the expense of raising them by contributing productive labor to the household economy.
Neither Romney nor Obama has any desire to discuss their polygamous background. Both are religious but they conveniently forgot the beloved patriarchs of the Old Testament like David, Solomon, and Abraham and their many wives (which neighbors were told not to covet).
Romney’s Mormon ancestors practiced polygamy but it was mainly confined to members of the church hierarchy who were wealthier than others in terms of land holdings and could maintain multiple households (bird reason number three).
Obama’s Luo ancestors likely practiced polygamy for all three bird reasons. There was a scarcity of males, local diseases were a major issue and powerful men could monopolize wealth.
The fact that both candidates are descended from recent polygamous ancestors (1) when no other Presidental candidate ever was is a remarkable instance of American diversity. It should be cherished rather than otherwise.
1. Maraniss, D. (2012, April 12). The polygamists in Obama and Romney’s family trees. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-and-romney-both-come-from-a...
2. Barber, N. (2008). Explaining cross-national differences in polygyny intensity. Cross- Cultural Research, 42, 103-117.
3. Barber, N. (2008). Cross-cultural variation in the motivation for uncommitted sex: The role of disease and social risks. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2): 217-228.
4. Barber, N. (2009). The wide world of polygamy: We hate it, others love it. Blog post. Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200902/the-wide-worl...
I'm afraid polygamy will make
Submitted by Anonymous on October 24, 2012 - 9:30am
I'm afraid polygamy will make a pig of me.
(But a happy pig!)
Sometimes I think that
Submitted by Wallace on October 24, 2012 - 9:51am
Sometimes I think that something similar to polygamy would make American women happier, contrary to popular belief (or their belief for that matter).
I've been married for 25 years. My wife and I are best friends. Yet, being a typical male (or human for that matter), I miss the excitement of discovery that comes from pursuing women.
Like a fenced bull, I can only watch the World and dream.
But, at the same time, my wife has a number of female friends that are divorced or never married, who lament their many failed relationships with flawed and broken men.
They often tell my wife how lucky she is and that they wish they could find a man like her husband -- me (modesty prevents me from going on in more detail).
It is always on the tip of my tongue to offer to take them into our family. Of course I don't say anything except, "Gee, that's too bad, I hope they find someone nice..."
So, I stay out of the dog house but stay firmly behind the fence.
I think if the threat of abandonment were taken off the table, my wife would be happy to have another woman around to provide the close emotional support that I am, all too often, too dull-witted to provide.
I, of course, would enjoy the variety and I wouldn't have to go to the Home Goods store anymore.
This all works wonderfully in my mind. But,somehow, I doubt it would all go off like clockwork in reality.
.
Get real.....
Submitted by Anonymous on December 27, 2012 - 12:14am
Do you think women don't miss the trill of someone new?? Do you think we wouldn't like someone different? Hotter? Bigger? Nicer? Sheez. I'd give anything for that. Extra men to love and be loved by. When with one, the others could go have a beer and watch a ball game. Bond. Talk whatever. Maybe help each other mow the lawn. I'd love to have different hands on me. Different kisses. Different smiles for me. All I have now is a guy who passes gas, grabs--rather than touches, gropes--rather than feels, French kisses like a gorilla (sorry to that species), never listens to me and doesn't care if it bothers me, ogles other women--always commenting on breast size, and gripes about my lack of passion. Oh man, I have passion--for men in my dreams. Why women put up with one man is a pure mystery. But let you have variety??? You've got to be nuts! You can't satisfy one woman. How do you think you can satisfy multiple women? Oh that's right--you don't care about the women. So long ad you're satisfied. Sheez. You want the other wives to fill your wife's emotional needs? Really? You chump! You learn how to do that!!! All you guys care about is hot sex. You use women. Screw yourself! Women deserve as many real men as they desire. You don't want to talk? Great! Off to husband number two. He doesn't want to give me multiple orgasms? Fine! Off to husband number three who's only 22 and ready for anything!! Oh Baby! You perform--look hot 24/7--pamper me, or you're outta here.
See how vulgar it sounds when it's the other way around?
But if there be multiples, by gosh, it's gonna be me having them!
anonymous, I love you. Not
Submitted by Jean on January 1, 2013 - 7:15pm
anonymous, I love you. Not like that...:), but I love the way you just put the straight facts. I so 100% agree with what you wrote. Thanks! Girlfriend...... you got it going on!!
You see world. The problem
Submitted by Pam on January 1, 2013 - 7:33pm
You see world. The problem is, that women want to be loved, respected, and adored just as men do, but we are too afraid to speak up, too afraid that we will speak the truth and hurt men's feelings! Well some of us will speak up and it doesn't mean we are trolls, are angry, hate men, need to get laid, or any of the other crap that men label us as for standing strong.
Now the truth....... Women should be allowed to have more than one husband just like men do. We get tired of all the mess that we take from our husbands, but we are not selfish like men are and so we put on out big girl bloomers and act like women. All men care about is does she give me sex and I don't want her to have an opinion or gain weight. Well men, guess what? We get tired of looking at you fat bald head and your fat beer gut. We also get tired of washing your nasty underwear and cooking for you. And you all have the nerve to be the ones who look at other women after all we do for you all. Women, we are straight stupid for putting up with our husbands' mess. We need to stop marrying these men. It's not worth it for a woman. They propose to us and then turn on us almost as soon as we say I do. Men really do want to get new sex everyday. Women should not have to adjust and change their minds and bodies to keep a man happy. A man needs to put on his big boy bloomers and act like a man.
Polygamy vs polyandry
Submitted by Amy on July 2, 2015 - 11:53am
I think you might be coming off a bit bitter on this subject. Wanting sex is healthy & shouldn't be considered vulgar. There are women that practice polyandry- multi husbands- but from an economic & biological standpoint this doesn't really fit our nature imo. I do it for reasons #3. I'd rather share an extraordinary man & gain a good friend(co wife) in the process than be an ordinary man's "one and only". Makes perfect sense to me
what if the man loved your
Submitted by farah on January 18, 2016 - 3:39pm
what if the man loved your friend more than you.screw you and your senses
You say an extraordinary man
Submitted by Lynne Erwell on July 24, 2017 - 3:48am
You say an extraordinary man when you share it, but what if he is extraordinary anyway, even with you being his "one and only"?
I must agree with many things in the comments in this discussion in different parts... Like, it is not just that wanting sex is healthy, but rather how we, women, have become in like, sexual objects just, or something like that. SO MANY THINGS, are about our sexual appeal.. Just look at all the beauty products, the commercials, advertisements, magazines... "This cream is for you to be forever young, to take away your wrinkles... This pills are for you to remain lean, to keep being attractive... This pole dance classes are for you to feel sexy and thus empowered... This sexy outfits and lingerie too, so that you feel sexy and empowered and better about yourself.. And so on so on"
For who is all of that? Really, for us? As I remember, when we were children we didn't need anything of that... So if we lived just by ourselves, would we still do it? For who? For men? And when did we begin to be in competition with women too - to be more attractive than?
Just because men want the younger ones, or feel unsatisfied with just one partner. Obviously, we women feel attraction to men too, but when have we seen the same amazingly strong image violence with men? They can be old and be attractive; they can have hair in their legs, armpits, and be attractive; they can be bald and be attractive; or have less beautiful figures even a beer stomach, and it doesn't matter; why aren't there more men with amazing abs and wearing amazingly sexy lingerie, or revealing clothes? What I see usually is the normal t-shirt and trousers or perhaps shorts not too short in length... Why aren't they showing their bodies more or using more creams to remain young like us?
If anybody gives the excuse of... Because it is in evolution that we need younger people to pass our seeds.. Bah! I could say the same about men.. Why wouldn't women need younger men because of their higher quality in so many aspects! Skills, agility, performance, sex drive, innocence, and quite possible better sperm too!
If anybody wants to practice polygamy, it is okay if they can live with that lifestyle. To each their own. In that case I would say: equality. If there are two hens, let there be two rosters too.
And if you want polygamy and your wife doesn't, then you need to talk about it and see if you come to any agreement. It could either be that you give your marriage for something different and let your wife free of those differences (because for people who don't think alike it is really painful, but perhaps better to separate and be on our own or be with somebody more like minded... Same for the polys), or just stay together and continue to nourish your relationship.
I am not a poly, so I would prefer my partner to speak out before even getting married, or as soon as possible in the relationship to know and realise it is not a place for me.
I am 26, by the way, and all of this are just simple observations I have had throughout...
Seriously though
Submitted by 45687 on February 9, 2019 - 12:59am
Your idea of having two wives that are best friends and confide in each other is great and all but the reality is that those two women would not be friends at all. Most likely they would want to strangle one another and it would cause serious repercussions to your marriage. I speak from first hand experience, coming from a family with 3 wives. My dad's wives were the farthest thing from friends. I have been going to counseling for over 15 years and I am still fucked up. It's nothing happy or beautiful believe me!
As long as its equal
Submitted by Annie on November 3, 2012 - 2:54pm
Interesting observation!! I think that what we have now in developed countries like the USA (where I live) is "serial polygamy": multiple wives or multiple husbands, just one at a time instead of all at once.
The problem with polygamy from my point of view is that its unequally available. In Islamic countries up to 4 wives and any number of "concubines" are allowed for men, but women in Islamic cultures/societies are put to death for having multiple sexual partners or sex outside of marriage. Can't get much more unfair than that!
I really would have no objection to polygamy if it were available to both men and women in a totally equal manner. I can't imagine a woman actually wanting multiple husbands or consorts, but, if some women do, then they should be allowed to have them if men are granted the same opportunity.
But as far as I can tell, all polygamous cultures and societies appear to be organized so that only the men have the choice to have multiple wives and multiple sexual partners, and in such unequal and unfair conditions women tend to be treated as objects or possessions, with less value than men, fewer human rights than men and less real power of self-determination than the men have.
So, in effect, "serial polygamy" gives equal opportunity for both men and women to have legal multiple sexual partners, and is therefor more fair to women.
Annie, Thank God for the
Submitted by Diana on November 4, 2012 - 10:03pm
Annie,
Thank God for the freedom of women in USA! Interesting enough I did not run, until now, in a women being the advocate of polygamous marriage. I wonder why?
Refreshing to get both sides
Submitted by Mkhize on January 16, 2014 - 7:36am
Refreshing to get both sides of the story. I met a woman in 2008 six months after my divorce. Went to test for HIV and were both negative. By the 5th month after the second tests we were having unprotected sex and She became pregnant while on the pill. A month later She started to behave like we were married and demanded to know my whereabouts and coming to my house unannounced. We separated while She was pregnant as I could not face her wrath. In 2009, I met another woman and the same thing happened but She moved in and we got married 8 months after meeting each other and She also became pregnant. The woman that I met in 2008 called to say we need to reconcile and She said She did not mind the presence of my new wife. I saw her secretly for four years. In 2012, I told my new wife about her and begged that She accepts her as my second wife to which She refused and demanded that I stop seeing her. I could not stop seeing her. I divorced my new wife in December 2009 while living with her and explained that I will remarry her the traditional African way so that I will be able to take on a new wife. She said when I am ready She will go. I told her She can see another man as well as long as the man will contribute to her upkeep(house, car, cosmetics, etc..). She said She did not plan on sleeping with another man ever as it is against her beliefs. In june 2014, the woman I met in 2008 will move to my city with our son and I will provide a home for them regardless. I hope the woman I met in 2009 does not leave when that happens. My 2009 women said that my 2008 woman is less classy than her. She would have tolerated someone as pretty as her or better. I will try for the last time to convince my 2009 woman about the benefits of polygamy on the 18th of January 2014. If She does not accept it still, I will help her start a new life elsewhere without me and support the two girls we have in every way I can. My 2008 woman's father had two wives so She is used to it and grew up in an indigenous religion that promotes polygamy. She even promised to help me find my next wife if I so desire. In return, I also told her that I will support her as well should She want another male in her life. She said I am enough for her for now. I am glad that I have voiced my preferences to my loved ones and acting on it instead to living in hiding for the past five years. I know some highly religious people with multiple sexual partners but hiding it and I think I am more truthful than them with my open desire to have more than one wife.
I divorced the woman in
Submitted by Mkhize on January 16, 2014 - 7:41am
I divorced the woman in December 2013 and not 2009. Pardon me!!
The problem
Submitted by Lynne Erwell on February 12, 2018 - 12:59am
The problem here is... Why on earth didn't you say that to your wife before you got her pregnant? If you entered a relationship saying: "I am monogamous" And then changed your mind after you have a child, getting married, and so on, then that to me doesn't make this world a better place. You are lacking responsibility, truth in your words, stability, maturity. Kinda like, it shows that you can't really be trusted, because just as you have hurt and changed an agreement you had with your wife, whom is the one who is supposed to be closest to you, then so you can do it with anybody else. Meaning, you don't mind betraying others, you don't mind hurting them.
I don't see it bad that you want to be polygamous, polyamorous, anything of that. That is your choice. BUT, if you have now affected in such a way the life of somebody else (your wife, with a child, who didn't know that about you when she came to you), then I am sorry, but you are fucked.
It is like, if you hit a car and damage it, you have to pay, you cannot just run away. You could, but that makes you quite despisable, untrustworthy. If you kill somebody, you will have to pay, even if that is not the most enjoyable thing for you, even if being in jail isn't what you consider "true" to you. Would you like it if it happened to you? If when they crashed your car they ran away? If they murder somebody you love they didn't have to go through anything?
Not sure why, but that is the least we can do. You affected somebody's life in such a big way, now you cannot just leave. And if so, one way or another you cannot complain if the world is ever unfair with you, because you are part of that unfairness.
Like I said, you can do it BEFORE having children, married somebody who thought you were monogamous. You say those things BEFORE, not after.
Would A Man Want His Wife To Have More Than One Husband?
Submitted by Anonymous on January 16, 2014 - 9:23am
For the men who think it is okay and talk it up, I wonder! how those same men would react to their woman if she decided that she wanted to have two more husbands.
I would rather leave and get a divorcé from a man who wanted polygamous marriage. That is so unfair and so nasty for a woman to know that your husbands is laying his genital thing a ling in some other woman or women, then bring those other women's. germs and put them into her body. How can women be so gullible and so weak minded? Sometimes I wonder about women's self esteem. Women seem to allow indoctrination a lot easier than men. Pathetic.
I cant really find any fault
Submitted by Anonymous on November 11, 2014 - 10:32am
I cant really find any fault with plural relationships in the same household as long as it does not involve marriage since this would divide assets unevenly . Most older women do not require or want a sexual relationship after a certain age but still need the resources of the relationship. However men due to our genetic engineering do require at least some form of intimacy occasionally. Bringing in another cohesive partner lessens work load for the older girls keeps the assets within the group and leads to more efficiency within the group. I would see no reason this would lead to abuse of any of the females in the group since they all have there areas of responsibility.
My guess: a teenaged Islamic guy wrote "I really can't find any fault"
Submitted by Annie on November 11, 2014 - 1:13pm
So, you are advocating a lifestyle in which there is one husband and one wife who are legally married to each other, but the husband also has numerous young female concubines living in the household who are there to "lessen the workload for the older girls" and be available sexually for him, but these concubines have no legal rights to share equally in the household's assets (the man's income, his property, etc.)?
Welcome to Islam, folks, where human slavery is alive and well, and the norm.
The anonymous poster described Middle Eastern marriage practices pretty thoroughly. Its a culture in which female children are owned by their father and sold into marriage at about age 8, and become the property of their husband. Women are objects with virtually no legal rights, such as the right to an equal share of and ownership of her husband's income and property, and women don't even have legal rights to their own children if they decide to leave their husband. Concubines have even fewer rights than wives, if that's even possible.
Instead of having the right to obtain a legal divorce and child support, a wife or a concubine is usually just killed, instead.
And whatever gave you the impression that older women do not require or want a sexual relationship after a certain age? That's both presumptuous and inaccurate of you to assume that older women don't want or need sex, and that ANY woman of any age would not care if she didn't share ownership of her husband's property/wealth/income, etc. That's just nuts.
But that's the way middle eastern countries perceive and treat women: women have no real thoughts or feelings; women are unintelligent and therefor not allowed to drive cars or vote, women are less valuable than men, women are just something you own that provide housekeeping services, that cook for you, that give you sex on demand, that produce children (more property) for you (sort of like owning cattle) and you can replace, discard or kill any of the women you own when she becomes too old or too uppity.
Gee, I wonder why women from around the globe are not swarming into Islamic countries by the millions, demanding to be sold into slavery? Hmmm.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the genital mutilation part. You can read about that somewhere else, its too barbaric, sadistic and cruel to describe here, but the basic idea of female genital mutilation is to prevent women from enjoying sex.
Oh yeah, fun times for women in old Bagdad.
Oops, I also agree with Annie
Submitted by Midori Kawari on July 24, 2017 - 3:59am
Oops, I also agree with Annie. You have it very wrong, my friend, in that older women don't want sex.. VEEERY.
And also, we love younger men! I would say there should be more relationships with younger men in the world. They too are better than older men.
And what about more revealing clothes for men too, and more abs and beautiful bodies? More hair in their head, please!
If you want polygamy, let it be equal and explain that to your wife to be or partner.
xoxo
It is unnatural
Submitted by Toju on April 5, 2016 - 1:38am
its unnatural for women to be equal with men. The west has severally try to change the natural world but it is not working. Lionesses does not rule the pride, God made it so. Men are naturally and biologically made polygamous in nature, man is made to spread his seed. How? A man can impregnate over 100 women in his life time and a woman cannot have get children for 50 men on her life time. Men's drive for another woman is more of the way he is made and just for sexual pleasure, sex is just a command for reproduction, even if men and women are ask to practice polygamy equally women will not still win, natural limit will still work. I support monogamy but serial polygamy is by natural laws. We don't want the burden of having many women but biologically we are made to find more women, hence we bear the burden of having other women in secret, not completely our faults. We should face reality and stop pretending. There is no law in the bible against polygamy other than preference...people can argue but today there are surplus women in society due to natural factors as well that make more women available to men. At age 20 and above there are already surplus women. More men in prison leaving behind women. More men go to war and die, more men does crime and die, more men does hazardous jobs and die, what can women do about all these. Remove sex at of it, polygamy has a place in modern society we try to deny
patriarchy and misery
Submitted by BPelto on June 22, 2016 - 12:51am
So you are saying that polygamy is good because many men are dead or in prison. You are promoting a society where men are required to die or be jailed in order for you or the select few elite men in society to merit multiple wives while other men go without. You are saying that this sort of polygamist society is good for you and a few elites and for no one else. Women are inferior and will be treated like cattle. The majority of men are inferior and will be treated like cattle. How nice for you and the few elites. The rest of humanity becomes disposable meat for your pleasure and greed of dynasty. Your personal ideal world is one of misery, death, and warfare. Please check history to see what becomes of societies where power is concentrated in the hands of the few.
Natural laws? That you bear
Submitted by Lynne Erwell on July 24, 2017 - 4:10am
Natural laws? That you bear the burden of having other women in secret and not completely your fault?
Natural laws are what makes a dog bark and bite when they are afraid or angry... Natural laws that they can even have sex with their own children.. Natural laws to feel rage and want revenge when something is done to you that you feel unfair.. An eye for an eye and the world will be blind. We are far better than that... Like you said too, we have choices. BOTH male and women feel attracted to other men and women. That some of us put a limit to our actions in respect to the person we love, our commitment and because we don't want to be going from one tree to another like monkeys, that is something too. If we went for the natural law of barking and biting, this world will be in a greater chaos. We see it even nowadays.. Countries attacking countries.. Can you not get a grip of your impulses? And when you feel the attraction, for the love of your partner just protect your heart! (if that is what you want, obviously. Otherwise, let your partner know).
Your excuse sounds of the kind who say: "Ahh, because my parents told me not to consume drugs I felt more driven to consume them!" Or "Because they told me to just sleep with one, I felt a deeper urge to sleep with more!"
Bah! If your parents say that it is because they love you, if anybody close to you tells you something like that it is not because they want to harm you, but rather because they care for you and your wellbeing.
Consume drugs and you will be addicted, which can lead to psychology disorders. Sleep with many and you will be addicted, leading to insecurity, overpopulation, and separations.
Also, you say that it is okay
Submitted by Lynne Erwell on February 12, 2018 - 1:29am
Also, you say that it is okay for polygamy in the Bible, but you don't understand how that has to do with men wanting to be above women. Back in the caves, before religion, both were equally important. Women were seen as goddess as they were the ones carrying the child in themselves. As years passed by, and religion came, men decided they wanted to be above women to control them (because they also didn't like the idea of not knowing if their child was actually HIS child, or of the neighbour), so they made God a male, priests who could just be men, a patriarch society.
That has been going on for many years. Men were scared, because they knew women are the carriers of children, they see that as miraculous. Yet if women cheated and had somebody else's child, how could they know that? They would work for somebody else's child? That is why they put themselves above, many rules to control women, to keep them at home, to keep them from working and thus being dependent on their man, so they couldn't leave, so they couldn't cheat. Historically, there have also been armies lead by women, or like the Amazon women, Queens who have lead countries who haven't married and were equally good in war and strategy.
As the century of more equality is rising, so is independence of women. We don't need men to provide for us anymore. We know how women can be as good as men in maths, sciences, art, socially; with the invention of guns, of bombs, do you think the gender actually matters? Maybe you will say: "Women stay out of war so they can survive and take care of their children". To which, little by little that BOTH parents can take care of their children is rising knowledge. Just as women don't belong to the kitchen and can work outside or be the providers of their family, so men don't belong to violence, machines and the outside world exclusively. There are men who like to cook, there are men who like to stay with their children, there are men who clean.
Like in Denmark, where the period for maternity leave is equal to BOTH parents. Both can leave for months to take care of their child, with actually is beneficial to the child. A child who is taken care by both parents grows up to be more secure, happier, less troubled, and the father also benefits in wellbeing, in happiness. They are more involved with their family; that makes him more committed, less stressed, less able to die because of violence.
Violence is the result of a patriarch society. The ones who usually commit violence are men, yet if we could understand that is not an attitude of theirs, just as shyness or submissiviness for example, are not just women characteristics, then we would be able to embrace kindness as both male and female, generosity, and so on...
A father who is monogamous and participates actively and equally with his family is less likely to be violent.
So... I am sorry, but what you say about it being in the Bible.. That is absolutely laughable. Maybe you are of the ones who dislikes our age because of female liberation, who dislikes independent women, frowns at the women who kiss women, who want equality, and so on.. You name it.
This woman here, I am a monogamous, I like men, kind, and generous, independent and adventurous, but I am also somebody who looks for equality, and if a man asks me for polygamy, I am sorry, but definitely not for me.
Surely, though, there are more like-minded people like you. Our world is so big, but the thing is, please say it before getting involved with somebody.
And for women, it is in us. If you want just one man, then we need to state that. If men can't find a woman who wants polygamous and for him to be the leader of the pack, then he won't have any other choice but to remain with one woman or alone. His choice.
You are wrong on MANY levels.
Submitted by jal11180 on March 20, 2019 - 12:06am
First of all, religion has always existed...even in the so-called "cave person societies." This is indisputable. Second, violence is NOT the byproduct of a patriarchal society, nor is it the byproduct of a matriarchal society, for the harsh reality is that women CAN and ARE just as violent as men. Evil women like Aileen Wuronos and the Countess of Bathory, as well as righteous women warriors, such as Joan of Arc, proved that in spades. Third, believe it or not, but men fight not necessarily to prove dominance per se, but, rather, to protect their own, as well as those strangers that need their aid, just like women typically do in their lives. Fourth, I would surprisingly agree with the Danish unisex maternity leave concept and I am convinced that it should be worldwide, as well as extended to a year for BOTH genders. Fifth, Atheism, Evolution, and their related ilk are just as much religions as those that they ironically condemn in the first place. You have holy writ, such as Das Kapital, On the Origin of the Human Species, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Cosmos, and other books, they were written by people, and their beliefs were also spread, not only by the people that promoted these stupid ideas, but also by other "useful (useless) idiots (their words, not mine)" that bought into their little pyramid scheme. Sixth, surprisingly, I desire polygamy BECAUSE I want equality. I desire to become a great person, and if I cannot do so, then at least my children, and whichever women marry me, will be able to build upon the foundation that I have set and build a bigger, as well as better, culture to be that example to the world that it so desperately needs in modern times.
Jee, I haven't read carefully
Submitted by Lynne on March 20, 2019 - 12:25am
Jee, I haven't read carefully all your reply as I am busy with a project right now, but where is the proof that religion the way we know it now (where there can just be priests, where women take the role of taking care of the house and home, where there are just male popes and a male God and Eve was the sinner), was there in the caves' time? If there was any sort of religion it was different than how we know it today - the most predominant ones.
As I have stated, people have different ways of thinking. If you want to go polyamory, go ahead, but state it before getting in a relationship with another person. I don't think it is neither right or wrong. Neither do I think Monogamy is better or worse (well, I do believe it is better, but what do I know? If we had different world to experiment with and different populations then maybe we could compare them and get to know). It depends in our culture, how we have been raised, our experiences, and what we want.
You probably can find more like-minded people. The problem would arise if you don't say it and once you are in a committed relationship with someone you write like the author of the article saying he wants more. Then the wife has all the right to leave, but how terrible, as that man would have caused some kind of trauma or damage the woman he is with. Even more so if there are children. They could try and solve this with communication for a more amicable separation, nevertheless I can imagine for a while it will be really painful.
So that, please state it before involving with someone.
You are wrong.
Submitted by jal11180 on March 19, 2019 - 11:52pm
You are wrong, sir. YAHWEH EL ELOHIM made polygamy not for the man, but both for the man AND woman. Moreover, in places where there is a. a lack of men in an area that has a lot of women, or b. there is a lack of women in a place that has a lot of men, He desires equality when either situation arises. He would understand that there needs to be a source of equality. Moreover, chauvinism/masculinism AND feminism are BOTH cancerous tumors that need to be excised from humanity.
Now with that being said, I agree with keeping women company, but I also want diversity of the gene pool, but NOT under the aegis of various Satanic race baiting bigots, rather, it is to PREVENT such fights from occurring in the first place. Moreover, in order to build a society, logically, reasonably, rationally, and common sense wise, it is faster to build up a force of men and women to build up said society than it is to rely solely upon one woman.
Finally, I do not accept secular marriage licenses, as they have betrayed the Creator, and, at the beginning of Creation, there was no need for human rituals when it came to marriage, nor will there be the need for any after the Final Judgment, to say nothing of modern times. What YAHWEH EL ELOHIM has put together, let no human break UNLESS YAHWEH EL ELOHIM Himself has decreed that it is to be broken.
Humans Are More than Replicators
Submitted by Victoria on February 11, 2018 - 8:45am
Okay, let's take personal opinions, fantasies, and feelings out of this, and let's talk biology then. The major problem with arguments like this is the fact that humanity is no longer a simple lifeform, running the fight/flight/f*#k program anymore. Yes, hunter-gatherers benefited biologically and genetically from polygynous relationships. Yes, the rise of agrarian culture was aided by more children to work these new-fangled farms.
But with the rise of agrarian culture also came the rise of large-scale societies, spanning continents, changing ALL the rules.
There is simply no precedent on Earth for modern anatomically correct H. sapiens sapiens. There are no other lifeforms that have changed as much, as fast. We can point to the past all we want, but we're making this all up as we go along, and if there's one thing history has shown us so far, it's that mindlessly sticking to past precedent isn't always the best idea.
Specialization became the name of this new human game, meaning that all parts of these new societies started needing all the rest of it. Some people have either no marketable/beneficial skills, or their skills are niche and not needed or wanted. That creates a distribution of wealth, and wealth became a new form of resource. If we stick to the idea that our biology NEEDS us to seek out the best resources, then women would want to marry men with wealth and avoid men who have little to none, further widening that gap in the wealth distribution pattern.
The second major problem with this argument is that it downplays social consequences, which are completely inextricable from the human experience now. The evolution of large cities, and then countries, changed our brains, changed the factors that became desirable. The availability of healthy males is no longer a problem for the species and hasn't been for hundreds of thousands of years, and is thus null and void.
Very much related to societal influence, I read a good article called "Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures," which, "Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives."
What do competitive creatures do when they feel threatened? They defend themselves. What do intelligent creatures do when they need something? They find a way to get it--or take it. Women will gravitate towards men who can provide for them and their children, which will leave out a HUGE majority of the rest of the male population. Since we've been looking at women as mere human printers so far, and since one guy could impregnate multiple women in a single day, why on earth would women even CONSIDER mating with any other poor, resource-less males?
The third major problem? It assumes that women were, have always, and will always be simple brood mares, here only to shoot out men's babies so other men can have sex with them later. There are many studies showing the correlation between increased female autonomy and rights and increasing standard of living. This argument is fundamentally flawed, in that it assumes that only men are human and only men drive the human species. If you write off half of your population, you're losing half of your potential to advance. Humans are MORE than the simple brainstem these days.
Oh, really?
Submitted by jal11180 on March 19, 2019 - 11:56pm
Let a disease, plague, or natural disaster wipe out a massive amount of the human population and see if you believe your attitude so smugly THEN! Hurricane Katrina and the Indonesian Tsunami of 2004 should have been wake up calls for you.
I agree with Victoria
Submitted by Ana on April 15, 2018 - 11:03pm
We are more than a sum of our urges. Otherwise, both males and females would be copulating in the street whenever the urge strikes them, presumably holding up traffic. With our earth so dangerously overpopulated, a male impregnating 100 women is not only no longer biologically necessary, but is a danger to human survival. In the modern world, it makes much more sense for a woman to have several husbands. If her husbands are having sex with only her, then because of biology, population numbers will be seriously curbed. One woman can only have about one child per year. In the scenario involving one man impregnating 100 women, no consideration is given to how those 100 children would be raised and provided for in the 20 years it takes a human child to reach adulthood. It makes no sense for a man to impregnate many women, only to leave them and their children to starve. A woman is vulnerable and in need of emotional and financial support when she is pregnant, and raising small children. Multiple husbands could provide very generous and healthful support to the woman and her child. Imagine having 4 major paychecks coming into the family. That child could be raised to have the best opportunities possible. Having multiple husbands would also really improve most women's sex lives. They would be free to tell the males what they really liked, or more importantly, what they didn't like, and the guy would have to shape up or ship out. No more gorilla French kisses, grabbing and groping, jackhammer impressions, and 2 minute wonders. No more lousy lovers. Multiple husbands is just a win-win.
A Man's World
Submitted by 45687 on February 9, 2019 - 1:35am
To the one that said women stop wanting or needing intimacy after a certain age, you are sadly mistaken. As humans we need someone to love and make us feel loved. Especially when children are involved you have to think of more than your sexual urges. If you can no longer handle being with a wife that doesn't give you sex and you need to bang a young girl then you need to do the decent thing and divorce her. It all comes down to commitment. Either commit or don't but if you do commit then actually commit honestly.
...or how about this
Submitted by jal11180 on March 20, 2019 - 12:12am
...or how about you give her a reason to be intimate with you and she learns to not be so selfish and be good to you that way when you are trying to be meeting her other needs in her life? The reality is that the concept of marriage is to make you essentially a hive mind when you need to be one and individuals when you need to be so in your lives. What I mean is that, while it is not wrong to have individual needs, urges, and such, it IS wrong to have one or more parties put those things above the needs of the other people...this selfishness is what destroys societies, regardless of them being monogamous, polygamous, or otherwise.
It's inevitable
Submitted by Neo on December 1, 2019 - 12:47am
Women prefer the top 20% of men and are willing to pursue them. As women drive more men away from them because they are so picky, their options are going to lessen. They can't be happy if they settle for some schlub when they know up front he isn't what they want.
So if a woman isn't willing to settle for less than she thinks she deserves (work with me on this!), she's got two basic choices: do without, or share.
Women don't share well, so it looks like lots of cats are going to have homes.
Post Comment
advertisement
