lexiconkabir:


Oh! Well, i never denied the sexual part but my point is, its not all about that like someone tried to make it seem.



That's our fitrah, except if you want to make yourself believe its not, just as how its our fitrah to get attracted to opposite sex but some try to make themselves believe that they are attracted to people of the same sex as them.

Plus women are much more emotional than men, men are capable of handling all the dramas that comes with loving(not lust) multiple women, but women? I don't really think so, except again, you want to make yourself believe that.

Ok..by fitra u mean its instinctual fo a man to love more women, Bt fo a woman its not instinctual? Ok..lol. i rest my case here. It ultimately lies on how we define lovn som1 n how we define havn an attraction fo d opposite sex...enjoy d rest of ur day

Ssthorm:

Ok..by fitra u mean its instinctual fo a man to love more women, Bt fo a woman its not instinctual? Ok..lol. i rest my case here. It ultimately lies on how we define lovn som1 n how we define havn an attraction fo d opposite sex...enjoy d rest of ur day

Capability is the word.....

lexiconkabir:


Capability is the word.....

Ok sir....

Ssthorm:

Ok sir....

Enjoy the rest of your day.

lexiconkabir:
Honestly, I didn't want to reply you, because you always have a flawed logic on every single thing that I've seen you talk about, but i have to set some things straight, and that will be all insha Allaah.




I don't know how you got to know this, when you are not a woman, a female said this;

"Whenever I look at polygamy, I look at it from a woman's prospective. If my husband married another woman, I would think he doesn't love me anymore. cannot really understand loving more than one person at a time"

Yani, she is saying in womanhood, loving more than man is incomprehensible, yes a woman can love one man and lust on another, permit me to define what lust is;

lust - /ləst/
noun
1. very strong sexual desire.
verb
1. have a very strong sexual desire for someone

So lust is all about sex, and thats it, idhan a woman can't love more than one man at a time, a man on the other hand can love more than one woman at a time, a genuine love, which is not all about sex.

Flawed logic?

What do you understand by Sexual chemistry and what triggers it?

Lust is not all about sex, lust is a psychological force of something you desire be it sex, object, power etc

Like have said both men and women are monogamous and polygamous in nature, one have to chose one base on culture, beliefs, religion.

A christian man(for example) will also say he can't think of loving two person at a time and even marry two wives.

How do you see India, Nepal women marrying more than one man?

You can do your research here on Nairaland, create a thread in family or romance section and ask ladies concerning having multiple husbands and see their response.

When i talk about "falling in love quickly" i am not saying a man falls in love super fast, rather the rate compared to that of a woman is faster(as far as i know), and i clearly said "I am not talking about lust" i mentioned that because the same way a man lust at a woman, a woman does the same, and the rate is virtually the same, as it has been defined, lust is all about sex and nothing more, so i am not talking about lust here but love, and no, once a man truly loves a woman, if that woman is out of his sight, he will long to see her again(same goes for more than one woman).

When a man lust for 10 women at the same time it goes off immediately they are out of sight, it only stays if he keep seeing them everyday and this leads to sexual chemistry some kind of connection, chemical force from the brain.

There are situation where the woman first love a man but took some time for the man to love her.

To fall in love quickly has two stages, Lust and sexual chemistry. You can't genuinely love a woman without a chemistry attached.

Yes, you cant love two women equally, some traits found in some is the cause, however this does not mean, the man do not love the other.

Yes I know.

Yeah you "think", but its false anyway, a man is not afraid to lose his wife, yet some men go as far paying for abortion bill should the other woman get pregnant.

Can't you see I stated it is marriage, beliefs that makes many men held to a particular woman?(some men are monogamous tho)

Take marriage away, and see if a man will tell a woman to abort her pregnant. Whether he won't become father of all nation.

A man is designed to have the capability to love more than one woman at a time, on the other a woman, is designed to commit to just one man, this is the hikmah of Allaah – Al-Hakeemul 'Aleem, this is why Islam allowed polygamy and not polyandry, even the human society tend to follow this path because its part of our fitrah(natural inclination), the society easily overlooks a man with more than one woman, but would demonize a woman with more than one man, thats our fitrah.

This is religion view not psychological, scientific view.

There is something called polyandry in nature it is part of mammals(females) and humans are among mammals.

India, Nepal, even China are example of polyandry practice.

Really, I don't follow the stories of these people, it's not beneficial.

Lol...When you don't follow a story how will you know it benefit?

Now this is for real;

Bye bye.

Okies.

RABIUSHILE04:


I seek refuge in Allaah from people like you.

Lol, you're scared to accept reality as it is.

This Zimbabwean woman married Two husbands because one doesn't satisfy her sexually. Lust, sexual chemistry in action. Who else wanna argue women don't fantasize having multiple husbands(polyandry) like men do(polygyny)?.

In recent report:
Zimbabwean Woman Living With 2 Husbands (Photo)
https://www.nairaland.com/3499019/zimbabwean-woman-living-2-husbands

Abeg make I find suya and garri chop.

tintingz:
This Zimbabwean woman married Two husbands because one doesn't satisfy her sexually. Lust, sexual chemistry in action. Who else wanna argue women don't fantasize having multiple husbands(polyandry) like men do(polygyny)?.

In recent report:
Zimbabwean Woman Living With 2 Husbands (Photo)
https://www.nairaland.com/3499019/zimbabwean-woman-living-2-husbands

Abeg make I find suya and garri chop.

The brothers should have recognized it is possible for women to have multiple partners. But when it comes to marriage, it is not common. My class teacher as far back as 80s in my primary school married 2 husbands. This is not natural GENERALLY for women especially in that society. Brothers here should have focused on its implications rather than disputing the fact.

The problem with a woman marrying 2 husbands at the same time are the children. It is going to be difficult to determine whose child belongs to who. DNA is not 100% as they do in the West. They have displaced children bcus of this innovation. I am not saying DNA system is bad. I am saying it is not 100%.

Even in the West, it is not natural for woman to marry 2 husbands at the same time. The least they would do is a pretty lady have a children for different men - married or not.

Empiree:
The brothers should have recognized it is possible for women to have multiple partners. But when it comes to marriage, it is not common. My class teacher as far back as 80s in my primary school married 2 husbands. This is not natural GENERALLY for women especially in that society. Brothers here should have focused on its implications rather than disputing the fact.

The problem with a woman marrying 2 husbands at the same time are the children. It is going to be difficult to determine whose child belongs to who. DNA is not 100% as they do in the West. They have displaced children bcus of this innovation. I am not saying DNA system is bad. I am saying it is not 100%.

Even in the West, it is not natural for woman to marry 2 husbands at the same time. The least they would do is a pretty lady have a children for different men - married or not.

# Because it is not common doesn't mean polyandry is not generally for women, like have said both men and women are monogamous and polygamous in nature, one have to chose one base on culture, religion, beliefs, desire etc.
If women are allowed to marry more than one man here in Nigeria like it is practiced in india what do you think will happen?

# DNA test is close to perfect now and there is no difference in children born in polygyny and polyandry home, someone like MKO Abiola or King Sunny Ade might even not know all his children. What makes you think all Sunny Ade children might be his true blood children if you think DNA test might not work in a polyandry marriage?

# Polygamy is not allowed/accepted in the west generally.

tintingz:
# Because it is not common doesn't mean polyandry is not generally for women, like have said both men and women are polygamous in nature, one have to chose one base on culture, religion, beliefs, desire etc.
If women are allowed to marry more than one man here in Nigeria like it is practiced in india what do you think will happen?

# DNA test is close to perfect now and there is no difference in children born in polygyny and polyandry home, someone like MKO Abiola or King Sunny Ade might even not know all his children. What makes you think all Sunny Ade children might be his true blood children if you think DNA test might not work in a polyandry marriage?

# Polygamy is not allowed/accepted in the west generally.

You still missing the point. Point is, polyandry is simply not natural in all cultures except as you already highlighted in India. For the fact that majority of the women folks would rather stick to one man beats the odd.

As for children, there is still diff. A man sleeping with multiple women still guarantees the children are his whether he knows them or not. But the other way around is despicable. Imagine two men mixing their semens in one woman at the same time. And she gives birth to one child.

Who is going to claim the child knowing fully well both men are waiting to see their child ?

Spot the difference

Empiree:
You still missing the point. Point is, polyandry is simply not natural in all cultures except s you already highlighted in India. For the fact that majority of the women folks would rather stick to one man beats the odds.

You're the one missing the point. What do you understand by culture?

Culture is man made, a behavioral system or custom in a society. Culture differs from each society. Culture favor men more than women.
Women having multiple partners are seen as promiscuous in many cultures, why do we hear or see cheating wives, why do we see ladies double dating?
Now remove culture, religion and let nature play its role on polyandry and see what will happen.

India, Nepal, China and some countries in Africa practice polyandry.

As for children, there is still diff. A man sleeping with multiple women so guarantee the children are his whether he knows them or not. But the other way around is despicable. Imagine two men mixing their semens in one woman at the same time. And she gives birth to one child.

Mr Empiree please don't disappoints me, you're very intelligent. Don't leave out the hypothesis of reproductive system.

Semens can mix up but sperm does not mix up.

Who is going to claim the child knowing fully well both men are waiting to see their child ?

Spot the difference

You should know that sperm travels to the ovum and fertilize, the ovum will be blocked from absorbing other sperm, the father can be known, if two sperm swim in, in the case of mixing up that will result to twins and DNA test can be conducted. Simple.

tintingz:

Semens can mix up but sperm does not mix up.

"semen" in my context referred to sperm

You should know that sperm travels to the ovum and fertilize, the ovum will be blocked from absorbing other sperm, the father can be known, if two sperm swim in, [size=15pt]in the case of mixing up that will result to twins[/size] and DNA test can be conducted. Simple.

bolded happens 100% of the time?. No. Even if they are twins and they divided the children btw the men, our heart can not overlook this. It is a very GREY area

Empiree:
"semen" in my context referred to sperm



bolded happens 100% of the time?. No. Even if they are twins and they divided the children btw the men, our heart can not overlook this. It is a very GREY area

According to my knowledge in reproductive, if two sperm swim to ovum at the same time and fertilized by the two eggs, that will result to non-identical twins, if one sperm splits that will be identical twins. DNA test will be conducted as who owns the children.

When it comes to culture, men in polyandry marriage does not have problem about who owns the children, they already know all these before getting into the act.

The reason polyandry is not common, is because it not beneficial to men and its costly according to psychology.

tintingz:

According to my knowledge in reproductive, if two sperm swim to ovum at the same time and fertilized by the two eggs, that will result to non-identical twins, if one sperm splits that will be identical twins. DNA test will be conducted as who owns the children.

When it comes to culture, men in polyandry marriage does not have problem about who owns the children, they already know all these before getting into the act.

The reason polyandry is not common, is because it not beneficial to men and its costly according to psychology.

Can you afford to be in this situation (polyandry) knowing full well the descriptions you gave above?.

Empiree:
Can you afford to be in this situation (polyandry) knowing full well the descriptions you gave above?.

No, because I'm brought up to believe in monogamy and polygyny marriage settings.

tintingz:
No, because I'm brought up to believe in monogamy and polygyny marriage settings.

why then they you appear to advocate polyandry if you cant afford to be in the situation?. For the fact that majority, including Western world would prefer monogamy or polygamy, that beats the odd (polyandry) which is pretty much restricted to Asia as you have indicated.

Now a lady in multiple boyfriends or double dates is different. We can make excuse for her that she is trying to weigh her option. So, from your last post shows that it is not fitra for a woman to marry 2 men at the same time. It is far too complicated than polygamy

Empiree:
why then they you appear to advocate polyandry if you cant afford to be in the situation?. For the fact that majority, including Western world would prefer monogamy or polygamy, that beats the odd (polyandry) which is pretty much restricted to Asia as you have indicated.

Lol, what make you think I can't be in polyadnry marriage if I was born in India? Did I said I can't afford to be in the situation? I gave you reason why I can't and it is because I was brought up to "believe in monogamy and polygamy marriage"

Nigeria culture does not accept polyandy marriage, why should I practice it here.

Men and women are both polygamous(polygyny-polyandry) and monogamous in nature, what's wrong for western not to prefer them. Because one is more common than other doesn't mean it does not exist in human nature.

Now a lady in multiple boyfriends or double dates is different. We can make excuse for her that she is trying to weigh her option.

A lady having multiple partners is no different from polyandry. Marriage is the branding. A man having multiple partners and a man having multiple wives is no different. Marraige is the branding.

So, from your last post shows that it is not fitra for a woman to marry 2 men at the same time. It is far too complicated than polygamy

Again marriage is the branding.

[img]https://www.newsghana.com.gh/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/wpid-onebride.jpg[/img]

The men behind the woman in the image above were brought up to believe in polyandry.

tintingz:


[img]https://www.newsghana.com.gh/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/wpid-onebride.jpg[/img]

The men behind the woman in the image above were brought up to believe in polyandry.

I can understand if they were brought up in such culture. My point stands, compare percentage of the world's pro polygamy and polyandry. The difference is clear. I guess you just trying to "prove" women can also my polygamous.

The fact that the practice is restricted to that region shows it is not favorable practice worldwide. They invented polyandry for themselves. Far as I am concern, those men you pictured are wasting their time. You may need to research percentage of polyandry in the region. Most likely it is handful. The baby is in trouble. She may end up on "Maury SHow" {who is my father}.

Empiree:
I can understand if they were brought up in such culture. My point stands, compare percentage of the world's pro polygamy and polyandry. The difference is clear. I guess you just trying to "prove" women can also my polygamous.

I don't even need to prove anything as women have been displaying their polyandrous nature everywhere by having multiple partners, fantasize about multiple partners, you can't say or deny it is not happening. The Zimbabwean woman in the report is another example polyandrous woman in African.

In science there is something called Polyandry in Nature that's part of mammals(female) and humans are among mammals.

The fact that the practice is restricted to that region shows it is not favorable practice worldwide. They invented polyandry for themselves.

Lol, I've given you definition of culture and culture favoring men than women. The world evolved patriarchally, men dominant, pride, ego, so ofcos polyandry is not beneficial to men why will it be a common practice in many cultures when culture is man-made.

Again, polyandry is not made up, it is part of women nature, and don't deny you don't see it everywhere.

Far as I am concern, those men you pictured are wasting their time. You may need to research percentage of polyandry in the region. Most likely it is handful. The baby is in trouble. She may end up on "Maury SHow" {who is my father}.

Sir don't be sentimental, my argument here are rational so far about human nature. Because your culture is against polyandry doesn't make polyandry in other people's culture waste of time, you don't know their culture. Because western countries doesn't legalize polygamy doesn't make them waste of time.

There is no problem with the baby as we have talked about this earlier.

tintingz:
I don't even need to prove anything as women have been displaying their polyandrous nature everywhere by having multiple partners, fantasize about multiple partners, you can't say or deny it is not happening. The Zimbabwean woman in the report is another example polyandrous woman in African.

In science there is something called Polyandry in Nature that's part of mammals(female) and humans are among mammals.

Lol, I've given you definition of culture and culture favoring men than women. The world evolved patriarchally, men dominant, pride, ego, so ofcos polyandry is not beneficial to men why will it be a common practice in many cultures when culture is man-made.

Again, polyandry is not made up, it is part of women nature, and don't deny you don't see it everywhere.

Sir don't be sentimental, my argument here are rational so far about human nature. Because your culture is against polyandry doesn't make polyandry in other people's culture waste of time, you don't know their culture. Because western countries doesn't legalize polygamy doesn't make them waste of time.

There is no problem with the baby as we have talked about this earlier.

I think you mixing it. I dont deny women having multiple partners for obvious reason. In this context we talking about MARRIAGE. i:e a woman marrying MULTIPLE men at a time. That is the definition of POLYANDRY not a girl having multiple boy friends. I have said earlier that we can excuse a girl having multiple partners for the purpose best known to her.

For instance, a girl may have multiple partners. One for her fleshy enjoyment. The other for finances. This is not polyandry. This is what you described above so far.

The craziest that happens so far in the West is a woman reported having 9 babies for 9 different men OUT OF WEDLOCK and at different times. This is still NOT polyandry. It's like she dumps one for another. But this is not the case with polyandry.

By definition, polygamy in which a woman has more than one husband.

Which means MARRIAGE. The people you pictured earlier MARRIED to her. That's what is reprehensible. Even if a girl has multiple partners, eventually her parents would say "choose from one of those men"

Empiree:
I think you mixing it. I dont deny women having multiple partners for obvious reason. In this context we talking about MARRIAGE. i:e a woman marrying MULTIPLE men at a time. That is the definition of POLYANDRY not a girl having multiple boy friends. I have said earlier that we can excuse a girl having multiple partners for the purpose best known to her.

For instance, a girl may have multiple partners. One for her fleshy enjoyment. The other for finances. This is not polyandry. This is what you described above so far.

The craziest that happens so far in the West is a woman reported having 9 babies for 9 different men OUT OF WEDLOCK and at different times. This is still NOT polyandry. It's like she dumps one for another. But this is not the case with polyandry which is not common in many cultures.

By definition, polygamy in which a woman has more than one husband.

Which means MARRIAGE. The people you pictured earlier MARRIED to her. That's what is reprehensible. Even if a girl has multiple partners, eventually her parents would say "choose from one of those men"

# Let's agree some women are polyandrous in nature.

# Marraige is just a brand to make relationship official or legal.

# The word Polyandry or Polyandrous doesn't always involve marriage as polygamy can also be use for someone who has multiple partners not particularly involve marriage. Animals don't do marriage, some are polygamous.

In Wikipedia:
In its broadest use, polyandry refers to sexual relations with multiple males within or without marriage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

In Merriam Dictionary:
the state or practice of having more than one husband or male mate at one time
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polyandry

E.g Rihanna is polyandrous(no marriage involve). In many culture she's seen as promiscuous but in her nature, she's being polyandrous.

I hope I'm clear?

@tintingz

Indeed, some females may have their fantasies, and can also seek multiple partners if they want to, but that happens to go against evolution as well as most culture and society, and most importantly Islam. Anyways, here is a quote which I believe is quite adequate on this “female polyandrous nature”…

“Female harem-keeping – polyandry – goes against some aspects of human and mammalian biology, once again because of the difference between sperm-making (what males do) and egg-making (a female monopoly). Although a male’s fitness is enhanced with every female added to his mating prospects, the same is much less true for the fitness of a female who mates with additional males.. There can indeed be a payoff to females who refrain from sexual exclusivity (actually, there are many such payoffs); however, there are also substantial costs, not least running afoul of the male sexual jealousy just described. Thus, even though females can sometimes enhance their fitness by mating with additional males, they are simultaneously selected to be surreptitious about their sexual adventuring. Hence, polyandry – unlike its overt counterpart, polygyny – is more likely to be covert and hardly ever proclaimed or institutionalized. It also doesn’t reveal itself in such blindingly obvious traits as sexual dimorphism in physical size, aggressiveness, or differences in age at sexual maturity, since unlike the situation among males, natural selection does not clearly reward such readily apparent traits among females. “

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pura-vida/201603/polyandry-one-woman-many-men

I do not think women are naturally predisposed to go seeking for multiple partners to cohabit with like men do, even being covert. In fact, polyandry, according to history, has been said to be as a result of environmental conditions.

Anthropologists Starkweather and Hames states, “polyandry constitutes a variation on the common, evolutionarily-adaptive phenomenon of pair-bonding -- a variation that sometimes emerges in response to environmental conditions.”

Furthermore, in societies that allow polyandry, a female involved is not in charge, the man still is, especially the first husband, and has to agree to such setup of another husband. Also, in some of these societies, the female is married within a single family, majorly for economic reasons, security or a skewed ratio of fertile females to males buttressing its occurrence as a result of the environment.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/

However, what is obtainable (especially in recent times) where females have multiple partners, not being under any form of legal relationship according to the society cannot be termed as being “the nature of women to be polyandrous”, it is pure animalistic way of life (even lower), not fit for any human who claims superior intelligence and higher status in the world (we can say the same for the males too), but still, on the contrary though, the males do have the backing of evolution in seeking multiple partners especially in propagating their “genes”, hence the common saying of men being naturally polygamous!

In a nutshell, nature/evolution does not support polyandry, and therefore we cannot say females are naturally polyandrous.

tintingz:


E.g Rihanna is polyandrous(no marriage involve). In many culture she's seen as promiscuous but in her nature, she's being polyandrous.

I hope I'm clear?

Your analogies dont add up. As for Rihanna, she's EXAcTly as you rightly said (bolded). Ask her if she's polyandrous, she probably doesnt know what it means. She will tell you she is not.

My brother in science discussion is here.

sino:
@tintingz

Indeed, some females may have their fantasies, and can also seek multiple partners if they want to, but that happens to go against evolution as well as most culture and society, and most importantly Islam. Anyways, here is a quote which I believe is quite adequate on this “female polyandrous nature”…

Lol, you accept women can seek for multiple partners but you still say it goes against their nature.

Kindly tell me what to call a woman that seek for multiple male partner and a man that seek for multiple female partner?

“Female harem-keeping – polyandry – goes against some aspects of human and mammalian biology, once again because of the difference between sperm-making (what males do) and egg-making (a female monopoly). Although a male’s fitness is enhanced with every female added to his mating prospects, the same is much less true for the fitness of a female who mates with additional males.. There can indeed be a payoff to females who refrain from sexual exclusivity (actually, there are many such payoffs); however, there are also substantial costs, not least running afoul of the male sexual jealousy just described. Thus, even though females can sometimes enhance their fitness by mating with additional males, they are simultaneously selected to be surreptitious about their sexual adventuring. Hence, polyandry – unlike its overt counterpart, polygyny – is more likely to be covert and hardly ever proclaimed or institutionalized. It also doesn’t reveal itself in such blindingly obvious traits as sexual dimorphism in physical size, aggressiveness, or differences in age at sexual maturity, since unlike the situation among males, natural selection does not clearly reward such readily apparent traits among females. “

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pura-vida/201603/polyandry-one-woman-many-men

I don't know if you're the one confusing yourself or the writer.

Here is what another report said:
Furthermore, polyandry occurred in 89% of populations, providing the first demonstration that polyandry is both ubiquitous and common in nature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534714000883#fig0005

There is no where the writer in your link your posted concluded women are not polyandrous.

The writer is shifting from one angle to another.

He started his article with this:

Although polygyny is evident in our bodies and behavior, polyandry is also “us.” ironically, we are both polygynous and polyandrous.

From my argument, I also mention men and women being both monogamous and polygamous.

Here again:

and yet women, like men, are also prone to having multiple sexual partners.

What do we call this?^

Here again:

Another way of looking at it: patriarchy pushes polyandry underground, but does not eliminate it.

I've also said this that male dominant created culture and made polyandry not common because it does not benefit them.

Here again:

In other words, women follow a two-part reproductive strategy consistent with an evolutionary history of polyandry: mate, when possible, with partners carrying those good genes, but associate socially with those offering the prospect of being good collaborators and co-caretakers of children.

A scientist or psychologist will never say women are not polyandrous in nature.

All what i pointed out are from same link you quoted.

I do not think women are naturally predisposed to go seeking for multiple partners to cohabit with like men do, even being covert. In fact, polyandry, according to history, has been said to be as a result of environmental conditions.

And polygyny was not the same?

Whether environmental condition or not, polyandry still exist in human nature. You can do your research.

Anthropologists Starkweather and Hames states, “polyandry constitutes a variation on the common, evolutionarily-adaptive phenomenon of pair-bonding -- a variation that sometimes emerges in response to environmental conditions.”

Furthermore, in societies that allow polyandry, a female involved is not in charge, the man still is, especially the first husband, and has to agree to such setup of another husband. Also, in some of these societies, the female is married within a single family, majorly for economic reasons, security or a skewed ratio of fertile females to males buttressing its occurrence as a result of the environment.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/

So whats wrong with this?

The same way our ancestors practiced polygyny for many reasons is the same reason polyandrous was practiced in some cultures.

However, what is obtainable (especially in recent times) where females have multiple partners, not being under any form of legal relationship according to the society cannot be termed as being “the nature of women to be polyandrous”, it is pure animalistic way of life (even lower), not fit for any human who claims superior intelligence and higher status in the world (we can say the same for the males too), but still, on the contrary though, the males do have the backing of evolution in seeking multiple partners especially in propagating their “genes”, hence the common saying of men being naturally polygamous!

In a nutshell, nature/evolution does not support polyandry, and therefore we cannot say females are naturally polyandrous.

Lol, a woman acting polyandrous is being animalistic?
Anyways humans are said to be higher animals according to science. You agree women fantasize and seek to have multiple partners but you still argue that it is not part of their nature when its clear and obvious everywhere?

Something that's a very common behavioral among women: Fantasizing and seeking for something comes from the brain, a chemical process that stimulate the desire for it and also put it action. Is this not nature at work?

Please what do we call a woman seeking to have multiple male mate?

Empiree:
Your analogies dont add up. As for Rihanna, she's EXAcTly as you rightly said (bolded). Ask her if she's polyandrous, she probably doesnt know what it means. She will tell you she is not.

To you and culture she's promiscuous but to psychologist she's polyandrous.

Tu face has 3 babymamas and a wife was he polygynous or promiscuous?

tintingz:
To you and culture she's promiscuous but to psychologist she's polyandrous.

Tu face has 3 babymamas and a wife was he polygynous or promiscuous?

See, you would done better if you stick to DEFINITION of POLYGAMY & POLYANDRY.

2face having baby mamas is promiscuous as well. In another word, CONCUBINES. By legal definition, him having baby mamas is NOT polygamy. Remember, we are dealing with legal definitions and consequences here. 2face is not currently practicing polygamy despite having multiple women.

May I remind you of a fuji star back in the late 90s who said:


"I (man) can have as many wives as I want, nothing wrong with it. But if a woman should have more than one husband she is promiscuous (LovePeddler)."

Empiree:
See, you would done better if you stick to DEFINITION of POLYGAMY & POLYANDRY.

2face having baby mamas is promiscuous as well. In another word, CONCUBINES. By legal definition, him having baby mamas is NOT polygamy. Remember, we are dealing with legal definitions and consequences here. 2face is not currently practicing polygamy despite having multiple women.

May I remind you of a fuji star back in the late 90s who said:


"I (man) can have as many wives as I want, nothing wrong with it. But if a woman should have more than one husband she is promiscuous (LovePeddler)."

I've given you the broadest use of POLYANDRY.

In sociobiology definition of polygamy, it does not always involve marriage as it deals with scientific study of the biological (ecological and evolutionary) aspects of social behavior in animals and humans.

A Fuji star is no different from tuface or fela or Sunny Ade, they are all displaying their macho behavior. That your Fuji star statement is a characteristics of a macho man, dominant, pride, polygynous and some kind of mysoginist.

tintingz:
My brother in science discussion is here.

Lol, you accept women can seek for multiple partners but you still say it goes against their nature.

Kindly tell me what to call a woman that seek for multiple male partner and a man that seek for multiple female partner?

I didn't make that up, it was clearly stated that polyandry goes against aspects of human biology! Please take note we are discussing humans, the higher and more intelligent specie on planet earth.

Yes we say the females are polyandrous, I do not go against the definition, I am only arguing with facts that it goes against human nature....

tintingz:

I don't know if you're the one confusing yourself or the writer.

Here is what another report said:
Furthermore, polyandry occurred in 89% of populations, providing the first demonstration that polyandry is both ubiquitous and common in nature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534714000883#fig0005

There is no where the writer in your link your posted concluded women are not polyandrous.

The writer is shifting from one angle to another.

He started his article with this:

Although polygyny is evident in our bodies and behavior, polyandry is also “us.” ironically, we are both polygynous and polyandrous.

From my argument, I also mention men and women being both monogamous and polygamous.

Here again:

and yet women, like men, are also prone to having multiple sexual partners.

What do we call this?^

Here again:

Another way of looking at it: patriarchy pushes polyandry underground, but does not eliminate it.

I've also said this that male dominant created culture and made polyandry not common because it does not benefit them.

Here again:

In other words, women follow a two-part reproductive strategy consistent with an evolutionary history of polyandry: mate, when possible, with partners carrying those good genes, but associate socially with those offering the prospect of being good collaborators and co-caretakers of children.

A scientist or psychologist will never say women are not polyandrous in nature.

All what i pointed out are from same link you quoted.

First and foremost, you should learn to distinguish between facts and opinions supported by proposed theories and hypotheses…

Secondly, I am not confused, nor the author; I never said the author was proving that polyandry isn’t natural; I presented facts that support my arguments. Being a rational individual, you are expected to analyze such write-ups and be able to arrive at an informed conclusion…

From the opinion article you presented, the authors were more specific about non-human populations, in fact they do agree to the variation of polyandry within different taxonomy, on the average, the population of females (all the 14 taxa data analyzed) said to be polyandrous is said to be under 50%. But if you want to equate humans with insects and butterflies, then I am correct to categorize females (humans) who seek multiple male partners as being animalistic, nay even lower, insect-like should be more appropriate...

Again, the statements you have quoted from the article I presented were not overlooked, the fact that the author only made reference to studies from other animals, and particularly "seemingly" monogamous birds, rather than humans, shows that polyandry isn't natural to humans, we are talking of studies of DNA here, how many human offspring do have multiple DNA imprint from different men?! He only mentioned that people are not different, but cannot substantiate it, rather stated that it was not institutionalized due to obvious reasons...Therefore, women would only covertly seek multiple partners to satisfy their sexual adventures...

See, no matter how you want to look at it, nature selected men to be dominant, and favoured polygyny, it did relegate polyandry among female humans to be unfavourable, and hence unnatural!

tintingz:

And polygyny was not the same?

Whether environmental condition or not, polyandry still exist in human nature. You can do your research.

Of course, I never said polyandry is not in nature, even homosexuality, inbreeding, bisexual and other anomalies can be found within lower animals. My argument is that, as higher animals with intelligence and sophistication, polyandry is not natural! it goes against our biology, psychology and sociology.

Environmental conditions that allowed polyandry is understandable, coupled with the fact that the women still are subjected to the male, and these societies are said to be very simple and primitive! I believe you do not want us to return to such status...

tintingz:

So whats wrong with this?

The same way our ancestors practiced polygyny for many reasons is the same reason polyandrous was practiced in some cultures.

Lol, a woman acting polyandrous is being animalistic?
Anyways humans are said to be higher animals according to science. You agree women fantasize and seek to have multiple partners but you still argue that it is not part of their nature when its clear and obvious everywhere?

Polyandry in humans varies from what is common and evolutionary supportive in nature. Yes polyandry was practiced in some culture due to environmental conditions, but that does not make it natural to women. unlike the males who have an evolutionary backing.

Polyandry is everywhere?! I guess you would also say that homosexuality is everywhere too right?!

Having fantasies i.e imagination is natural to humans, but what you imagine or fantasize about may not be natural. I fantasize that I can fly, but is it natural for humans to fly?! And yes I can try to fly, and find a way around my nature, which is why we have hot air balloons, airplanes, sky diving etc. When some females have fantasies about having multiple male partners, it’s natural, but the act itself, going out to seek multiple men is going against nature, because nature had made such act unfavourable. Same would be said about homosexuality, it is against human nature, but can be fantasized about, I mean you do not even need to have a psychological or genetic issues before you can do that, but it is NEVER natural to humans! Those who eventually carry out these activities are anomalies, and eventually problematic not only to society, but nature itself.

If you want to claim that seeking multiple partners by female humans is natural, then nature would have supported it, it would have been widespread and overt, there would be no reason to be surreptitious about it. I should even put it to you; let’s say you do have a female you are dating, would you accept her having multiple men dating her too and mating?! If you say no problem, then what is the difference between you and the lower animals?! We are humans, we should know better and act better!

tintingz:

Something that's a very common behavioral among women: Fantasizing and seeking for something comes from the brain, a chemical process that stimulate the desire for it and also put it action. Is this not nature at work?

Please what do we call a woman seeking to have multiple male mate?

Lol you said "common behavioral among women"?! something that nature had carefully relegated to the background, and would only be carried out secretly?! Perhaps you are making reference to what is now obtainable which I had clearly stated being a result of humans relegating and downgrading themselves to the lowest of low in the hierarchical structure of species?! Isn't the Words of Allah ever true?!

"Certainly We created man in the best make. Then We render him the lowest of the low"...(Surah At-Tin 4-5)

I studied those chemicals you are talking of, especially dopamine, they are called neurotransmitters, they can be subjected to your thoughts, your environment and ultimately your regular activities...the urge to have sex is natural, but having sex with animals or same sex as yours isn't, even if some humans find that fascinating and fantasize about it, thus, women fantasizing about having sex with multiple partners isn't the issue, but the fact that it goes against aspects of human biology, not supported by human evolution, not socially viable, and most importantly, religiously abominable! I still believe and state that polyandry is not natural to women folks.

@tintingz Just to make you realize I am not the only one saying this,

“Some anthropologists have suggested that polyandry is so unusual among human beings as to be “unnatural” (Stephens 1963, 34). In the few cases where it does occur, polyandry is fraternal: a wife of one brother becomes the wife of all, even brothers born after the wedding. This fraternal arrangement moderates the jealousy of the males and ensures that the offspring are related to them."

Source: Larry Amhart, “Darwininan Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature” pp. 264. Can be found on google books.

sino:


I didn't make that up, it was clearly stated that polyandry goes against aspects of human biology! Please take note we are discussing humans, the higher and more intelligent specie on planet earth.

Yes we say the females are polyandrous, I do not go against the definition, I am only arguing with facts that it goes against human nature....

Polyandrous does not go against human nature, for something to exist in human(females) shows it is part of them.

First and foremost, you should learn to distinguish between facts and opinions supported by proposed theories and hypotheses…

Secondly, I am not confused, nor the author; I never said the author was proving that polyandry isn’t natural; I presented facts that support my arguments. Being a rational individual, you are expected to analyze such write-ups and be able to arrive at an informed conclusion…

The author didn't arrive at any conclusion that women are not polyandrous, the author was trying to balance his research because he knows polyandry exist in human nature.

From the opinion article you presented, the authors were more specific about non-human populations, in fact they do agree to the variation of polyandry within different taxonomy, on the average, the population of females (all the 14 taxa data analyzed) said to be polyandrous is said to be under 50%. But if you want to equate humans with insects and butterflies, then I am correct to categorize females (humans) who seek multiple male partners as being animalistic, nay even lower, insect-like should be more appropriate...

Humans are part of taxonomy group(species-H.Sapiens). And secondly all population of polyandry are said to be 89%, 100% in eight taxonomy group out of 14.

So, it make sense because not all humans generally are polygamous, there are monogamous men.

We are higher animals, calling women seeking for multiple male mates animalistic is nothing in science, men also seek for multiple partners like lower animals so it is nothing.

Again, the statements you have quoted from the article I presented were not overlooked, the fact that the author only made reference to studies from other animals, and particularly "seemingly" monogamous birds, rather than humans, shows that polyandry isn't natural to humans, we are talking of studies of DNA here, how many human offspring do have multiple DNA imprint from different men?! He only mentioned that people are not different, but cannot substantiate it, rather stated that it was not institutionalized due to obvious reasons...Therefore, women would only covertly seek multiple partners to satisfy their sexual adventures...

How does egg fertilize the sperm and is it possible for two sperm to mix?

If polyandry is not natural for humans then why does it exist?

See, no matter how you want to look at it, nature selected men to be dominant, and favoured polygyny, it did relegate polyandry among female humans to be unfavourable, and hence unnatural!

Yes nature selected men to be dominant but culture made polygyny favored, don't forget there are monogamous men, does that also make monogamous unnatural?

Of course, I never said polyandry is not in nature, even homosexuality, inbreeding, bisexual and other anomalies can be found within lower animals. My argument is that, as higher animals with intelligence and sophistication, [s]polyandry is not natural! it goes against our biology, psychology and sociology. [/s]

No biologist, psychologist, sociologist will conclude on this claim.

Environmental conditions that allowed polyandry is understandable, coupled with the fact that the women still are subjected to the male, and these societies are said to be very simple and primitive! I believe you do not want us to return to such status...



Polyandry in humans varies from what is common and evolutionary supportive in nature. Yes polyandry was practiced in some culture due to environmental conditions, but that does not make it natural to women. unlike the males who have an evolutionary backing.

The major reasons our ancestors practiced polygyny were because of statues, wealth, farming, sexuality etc. So why is it an issue with the reasons for polyandry?

Polyandry is everywhere?! I guess you would also say that homosexuality is everywhere too right?!

Polyandry behavior is everywhere, look around you and don't deny you're not seeing it. From cheating wives, to double dating, to multiple sexual partners.

Having fantasies i.e imagination is natural to humans, but what you imagine or fantasize about may not be natural. I fantasize that I can fly, but is it natural for humans to fly?! And yes I can try to fly, and find a way around my nature, which is why we have hot air balloons, airplanes, sky diving etc. When some females have fantasies about having multiple male partners, it’s natural, but the act itself, going out to seek multiple men is going against nature, because nature had made such act unfavourable. Same would be said about homosexuality, it is against human nature, but can be fantasized about, I mean you do not even need to have a psychological or genetic issues before you can do that, but it is NEVER natural to humans! Those who eventually carry out these activities are anomalies, and eventually problematic not only to society, but nature itself.

Lol, When a man tries to fly he either get hurt or die because he has no wings or gravity control so it is very very unnatural, but the case is different from female seeking for multiple partners, she's going to enjoy it to the last, sexualy and magally.

If you want to claim that seeking multiple partners by female humans is natural, then nature would have supported it, it would have been widespread and overt, there would be no reason to be surreptitious about it. I should even put it to you; let’s say you do have a female you are dating, would you accept her having multiple men dating her too and mating?! If you say no problem, then what is the difference between you and the lower animals?! We are humans, we should know better and act better!

Nature supported it but some culture didn't support it due to male dominat.

When dating we are suppose to act monogamy but that wont eliminate the polygamous in us, if she carry out the act ofcos i will be heart broken and if i carry out the act she will be heart broken because our agreement is to stay monogamous but there are open relationship or something called polyamory where both spouses have multiple partners and have no problem with it.

Lol you said "common behavioral among women"?! something that nature had carefully relegated to the background, and would only be carried out secretly?! Perhaps you are making reference to what is now obtainable which I had clearly stated being a result of humans relegating and downgrading themselves to the lowest of low in the hierarchical structure of species?! Isn't the Words of Allah ever true?!

"Certainly We created man in the best make. Then We render him the lowest of the low"...(Surah At-Tin 4-5)

I studied those chemicals you are talking of, especially dopamine, they are called neurotransmitters, they can be subjected to your thoughts, your environment and ultimately your regular activities...the urge to have sex is natural, but having sex with animals or same sex as yours isn't, even if some humans find that fascinating and fantasize about it, thus, women fantasizing about having sex with multiple partners isn't the issue, but the fact that it goes against aspects of human biology, not supported by human evolution, not socially viable, and most importantly, religiously abominable! I still believe and state that polyandry is not natural to women folks.

There is no where a scientists broadly concluded polyandry is not natural, what they do is balance their research.

I can't call something unnatural when it comes from their inner sexuality, when it is enjoyed, when it is part of some culture, when women themselves don't complain about it and NOT hurting them.

If a man can be polygamous what stops a woman from being polygamous.

sino:
@tintingz Just to make you realize I am not the only one saying this,

“Some anthropologists have suggested that polyandry is so unusual among human beings as to be “unnatural” (Stephens 1963, 34). In the few cases where it does occur, polyandry is fraternal: a wife of one brother becomes the wife of all, even brothers born after the wedding. This fraternal arrangement moderates the jealousy of the males and ensures that the offspring are related to them."

Source: Larry Amhart, “Darwininan Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature” pp. 264. Can be found on google books.

Erm, can you provide link to what you quoted so that I can examine it.

And secondly it says "some anthropologist" and it is a suggestion, so it means not all anthropologist agree to this, so it doesn't count.

Tintingz,

What is the percentage of POLYANDROUS women WORLDWIDE?

As you can see in the links, even polygamy is bolstering in the West, from 2001 to 2015 was a big jump. Eventually in years to come, it would be welcomed and favored over mono and polyandry. As you can see from the links, polyandry is frown upon.