pickabeau1: The issue here is what constitutes the marriage

pickabeau1: this post is an option left to strong women and i support it
However it means the man is suffering little or no consequence

...monogamy...because no man really needs two wives...and no woman can readily handle two husbands

TV01:
I can't really argue that point can I? Even if I claim it's morality based, it's evident my morality is Christianity based.

But I can argue this one; please evidence that assertion.
Whatever ones beliefs about how human beings - or marriage - came into existence, polygamy could never have pre-dated monogamy. ven apolygamist has to marry one to start with !
With a natural birthrate of around 105/6 boys to 100 girls, even where polygamy is permitted, monogamy remains the most practiced model.

Polygamy would be dead on arrival (or at best marginal) in a society where there is full harmony and empowerment of the sexes. ATBE, all it really is is a carnal (legally winked at) outlet for concupiscence in men.

ATBE, what right-thinking or empowered woman really wants to share her husband? And what loving and faithful man can really claim that he requires further wives?

All you are saying here - and quite wrongly I might add - is that fidelity is not synonymous with conjugal faithfullness. By definition, you cannot make that claim for monogamy.


TV

The Ancient Sexual Revolution that May Have Spurred Human Monogamy

Did a sexual revolution, led by low-ranking males and faithful females, lay down the roots of the modern family?

Monogamous, romantic love — or, more prosaically, pair-bonding — may have evolved in a sexual revolution that could have laid down the roots of the modern family, according to an intriguing new mathematical model.

Researchers have long wondered why — unlike our sexually promiscuous chimpanzee-like ancestors — humans developed strong pair bonds with individual partners. It’s thought that at one time, human ancestors did engage in chimp-like habits of sex and child-rearing, in which strong alpha males mated freely with the females of their choice, and then left the child-raising duties to them. So, the question is, How did we got from there to the modern-day monogamous, two-parent family?

“People have been discussing ways by which the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding could have occurred and there are various different scenarios,” says study author Sergey Gavrilets, distinguished professor of ecology, evolutionary biology and mathematics at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. “What I’ve done is shown mathematically that some of these scenarios are more likely than others.”

Gavrilets study suggests that a sexual revolution occurred, led by low-ranked males and faithful females. Low-ranked males, who had no hope of physically overcoming the dominant members of their groups, instead began providing extra food to certain females, to curry sexual favor. These females responded by remaining faithful to their breadwinning males. That change in behavior favored the reproductive success of these monogamous couples — pair-bonding offered a greater likelihood that their children, who took a lot of effort to raise, would survive — ultimately moving humanity away from a promiscuous mating system dominated by alpha and beta males.


Gavrilets reasons that males in promiscuous hierarchical species face a dilemma because the alpha and beta males tend to get all the mating action. Lower-ranking guys have two choices: either compete their way to the top and win reproductive opportunities, or look for ways to beat the system.

“They can put effort into achieving high-dominance status. If they do, they will have more mating opportunities and more offspring,” says Gavrilets. “On the other hand, they can do something else. They can try to increase the survival of their own offspring directly and that would also increase the potential for greater numbers of surviving offspring.”

One way a male could do this is simply by guarding a particular female and making sure no other males can mate with her. Or he could exchange food for sex with a variety of females, in something like an early version of prostitution.

Alternatively, a male could provide extra food to a specific female exclusively, thereby getting more chances to mate with her and also helping her and her offspring survive with the increased nutrition. “Males get a double benefit. There’s the immediate benefit of more mating. [Having more food] also increases female fertility and decreases the interbirth interval so you can have more kids more often,” Gavrilets says.

Another male strategy could be to help out with kids directly — whether they’re his offspring or not. By helping all of the group’s mothers raise their children, the males help increase the offspring’s chances of survival, presumably including those that he fathered.

In Gavrilets mathematical models, the only scenario that appeared to push humans away from promiscuity was one in which males — low-ranking males, to be specific — provisioned one female. (Thankfully, love doesn’t seem to have its roots in the oldest profession.) “What happens is that for guys at the bottom of the hierarchy who are weak or small and who would never be able to win competitions, mate-provisioning becomes a very valuable option” says Gavrilets. “They start provisioning the females first and then females develop a preference for provisioning, and then [begins] the whole process of the co-evolution of male provisioning and female faithfulness.”


In other words, when females come to prefer males who provide a bit more for them even if they aren’t the biggest or strongest, those males start preferring females who are faithful, and this process ultimately creates pair bonds between them.

Both male and female choice drove evolution. “Female faithfulness increases as a result of males selecting more faithful females and male provisioning grows as females select for better providers and they co-evolve in a mutually beneficial way,” Gavrilets says.

Sarah Hrdy, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, and a leading evolutionary theorist, commended Gavrilets’ research, though she took issue with some of the assumptions made in his mathematical model. “We don’t fully understand the evolution of human pair-bonding so I welcome this effort,” says Hrdy.

However, she disagreed with a few of its key suppositions: for one, she thinks that cooperative rearing of children by women was a critical factor in human evolution, but Gavrilets’ model relies on research that doesn’t reflect this. Gavrilets uses data that suggest that early human females left their home groups in adolescence in order to mate, and that they did not cooperate in child care with females in their new group because they were unrelated.

But Hrdy says, that “multilocal residence patterns were far more typical,” citing data that suggests that males often moved to live with a female and her family for a while. “Over the course of their lifetimes, both sexes are moving, perhaps multiple times,” she says, allowing for cooperation between females to be important.

Hrdy adds that paternal commitment in the human species is highly variable — both today an in ancient times. “Some men will do anything to remain near their children. Others, even some [who are] certain of their paternity, act like they do not even know they had children,” Hrdy says. “I don’t think human mothers in the past could count on the long-term survival and fidelity of provisioning mates any more than mothers today can. It looks to me like males are responding to a wider range of factors than can be represented in such a model.”


Gavrilets agrees that the model is not complete and is working to include more variables. “I think what this model does is that it looks at the very first step in this very long process,” he says. It does not, however, fully explain the origins of male tendencies toward monogamy.

Whatever started it, Gavrilets notes, humans’ transition to monogamy was much more radical than the sexual revolution of the 1960s — even though it went in the opposite direction. “Not many people realize that the most important sexual revolution for our species probably happened several million years ago,” Gavrilets says. “This revolution was accomplished by the masses of lower-ranked males, along with females, directly against the elite of alphas, so the term revolution is even more appropriate.”

The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Maia Szalavitz is a health writer at TIME.com. Find her on Twitter at @maiasz. You can also continue the discussion on TIME Healthland’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIMEHealthland

bukatyne:

Pickabeau1

Is a married woman collecting money for 'hair' from her colleague the same with a single lady doing so?

Is a married woman collecting a toaster's number the same with a single lady doing so?

pickabeau1: You asked me a rhetorical question yet expect me to answer

bukatyne:

You have not answered my question

bukatyne:

What is rhetorical about it?

If a married man courting another woman to marry her is not strange to you, then a married woman collecting a toaster's number is equally not strange.

@Date of polygamy:

How can polygamy pre-date monogamy?

God created a man & woman, According to Muslims, Allah created a man & woman so how can polygamy be before monogamy?

pickabeau1: Ok.. you win

and everybody believes in Allah and Jehovah?

freecocoa: I can't help but think that, the only reason a man would take a second wife is, because he is tired of the first wife and wants to replace her, more like he's missing something and feels another woman can give him that.


I can never be a 2nd wife or agree to a 2nd wife.

bukatyne:

This 'you win' is very annoying

Were we fighting or competing here?

If one does not believe in Allah or Jehovah, what is the major root for polygamy? Culture? Why did our fore fathers have 2 or more wives? Is it still relevant today?

Doesn't a man marry a wife first (monogamy) and decides on no 2 to infinity before becoming a polygamist?

pickabeau1:
Yes of course.. the man starts with one except in cases where he marries more than one at the same time
I dont need to go too far
Knowledge of Saxons, Vikings as far back as the 11th century were most polygamous
ROmans were monogamous and as the conquering race everyone will conform

http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm

No need to drag this

pickabeau1:
I agree with your points on no one wanting to share her man
I never said fidelity is not synomymous with conjugal faithfulness. you are assuming on my behalf
I am saying that your assertion that conjugal faithfulness is exclusive to a union of a man and a woman is not all inclusive

This view is only shared by christians and strictly for those who want to be a bishop

PassingShot:


Why speaking from both sides of the mouth?

pickabeau1: TV01
Interesting read

Female empowerment also contributed to the downfall of polygamy
On this we are agreed
Evolution of Monogamy
http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/29/the-ancient-sexual-revolution-that-may-have-spurred-human-monogamy/print/

TV01:
I find it hard to see how faithfulness can be unilateral? Even between 2 people
Or how it is faithfullness between more than 2 when they are not all faithful to each other, just the women to the man and he does not have to be faithful to them?
Apologies, it simply does not compute. And although I'd appreciate aclear explanation, I won't drag.
TV

TV01:
Read it, but with my "Christian fundamentals", I simply do not believe that men "evolved". Nor have I seen any evidence for it. If evolution were true, we shouldn't even have sexual reproduction, it doesn't make much biological sense.


TV

MrPresident1:

There is such a thing as extenuating circumstances.

TV01:
I can't really argue that point can I? Even if I claim it's morality based, it's evident my morality is Christianity based.


But I can argue this one; please evidence that assertion.

Whatever ones beliefs about how human beings - or marriage - came into existence, polygamy could never have pre-dated monogamy. even a polygamist has to marry one to start with !

With a natural birthrate of around 105/6 boys to 100 girls, even where polygamy is permitted, monogamy remains the most practiced model.

Polygamy would be dead on arrival (or at best marginal) in a society where there is full harmony and empowerment of the sexes. ATBE, all it really is is a carnal (legally winked at) outlet for concupiscence in men.

ATBE, what right-thinking or empowered woman really wants to share her husband? And what loving and faithful man can really claim that he requires further wives?


All you are saying here - and quite wrongly I might add - is that fidelity is not synonymous with conjugal faithfullness. By definition, you cannot make that claim for monogamy.


TV

pickabeau1:
I understand your concept of bilateral equity in faithfulness perfectly
As i said it only works in a monogamous union

In a polygamous union its more of a spider diagram with the man at the centre
However it does not translate to polygamy as cheating as being insinuated

The mindset is more likely yes..but they are not the same

pickabeau1:
Its not the evolution part ala Charles Darwin

women traditionally were spoils of war are raids and loots

They were shared as booty

Only the powerful men had access to these women leaving the less able men with scraps

Hence the evolution

Read up on the Saxons, Vikings

ayinba1:
Are you married? am just trying to see what angle each contributor is writing from.

freecocoa: Then she must be tired of the man and wants someone to help ease the ache or load as the case may be.

On a more serious note though, there has to be a reason, I don't believe a woman who's in love with her man, will be willing to share him, I just can't wrap my head around it.

Just why does it have to be the men taking the wives and expecting the women to be cool with it as it is no big deal? Now tbaba, honestly tell us, how you would feel if you ever have to share your woman with another man? Will you even accept such?

TV01:
Re the bolded, my point is that if it's "faithfullness" to whom is the man faithful? Not to the women, but to his own desires. So even if you argue that it is "not cheating" - as it's accepted abi? It cannot be termed faithfulness, as it's simply not a requirement for him, nor can it be demanded of him.


If it's not entirely myth, it's not long-term tenable. If that was the case, ordered socities would never have sprung up. Human socialisation has changed in some ways, but pair -bonding has been since forever.

Men are naturally protective and defensive of their own women. Be that family, tribe or ethnic. I want my female relatives to make good marriages. I have no intellectual issues with a black woman marrying a white man, but still feel a visceral response. Especially if the bobo is wor-wor ? I shudder when I see sisters smoke, but feel nothing if its white women.

Women were only spoils and "booty" (yeah, I see what you did there ) if they were from enemy tribes. And more likely inter-marriages ("giving away" their daughters) would have been common and used to form alliances.

And then - even as now - not everyone would have been able to marry - poor men, suffering short and brutish lives, with no sex, since forever ! Societal evolution didn't create marriage, it just made it more accessible.


Always good to chew with you Pick. Come, are we derailing !

TV

ayinba1:

Are you married? am just trying to see what angle each contributor is writing from.
@all others
Let us remember to be civil and respectful of the OP. This is her reality and many women in Africa. The strict laws concerning monogamy in the West makes it a non issue because the man either divorces or kills his wife, then marries the new one.

@OP, Do not leave your husband if you both still love each other and can make it work. I agree that the woman in the home should be notified first. Wanting to be a polygamist does not equate cheating and sneaking up on your spouse. Respect for feelings are crucial in any relationship.

ayinba1:

Are you married? am just trying to see what angle each contributor is writing from.
@all others
Let us remember to be civil and respectful of the OP. This is her reality and many women in Africa. The strict laws concerning monogamy in the West makes it a non issue because the man either divorces or kills his wife, then marries the new one.

@OP, Do not leave your husband if you both still love each other and can make it work. I agree that the woman in the home should be notified first. Wanting to be a polygamist does not equate cheating and sneaking up on your spouse. Respect for feelings are crucial in any relationship.

pickabeau1: I can imagine how d lesser men of those days coped when the women will naturally gravitate to the richer ones to be the nth wife rather than be their first wife - hypergamy again

pickabeau1: For me.. polygamy was a bit unfair to men of lower means but suitable for men in the upper strata - pick and choose
More kids - more labour - more harvest -- more wealth

pickabeau1: However the issues it tried to solve still exist (prevalence of marriageable women - widows, 30+, 40+ with no or little hope of being married)With female empowerment as it is, women dont need to look to a man for financial needs however the companionhip need still stays

GodsDivinefavor: Am trying hard not to allow these affect me at work. That accounts for my delay on the thread.

Let me also appreciate everyone for the concern, advise and encouragement.

And for the mature contribution from young and old to serve as learnings for all.

And also add that "purging" myself have really relieved me and lift up my spirit, I pray for his grace to continue on these lane.

I really don't want to hold any grudge against my husband, and want my kids to grow loving him as a father no matter what.

My eldest child is 6+, 2 girls and a boy all of whom I want them to enjoy growing up in the presence of their father....sincerely his such a wonderful man only God knows what kind of test is these.

I just hope I make it through.

Seriously, if someone or a sooth sayer told me I will be these calm...hmmm
I know myself, I know the thoughts that have gone through my mind withing these period...

I choose NL cause its a faceless forum, confiding in friends migth have aggravate the episodes or maybe I might be behind bars now.

But in all, I am indebted to my mum who unfortunately died in the midst of all these and she made me promise not act funny.

My elder ones too intervened but really it is like dreaming and hoping it won't come to pass, have come to realise no one is strong until life shows you the other side. Most especially when you least expect it.

TV01:
Yes, I am. The proud husband of 1 wife !


TV

bellong:

And you believe we do not have such law in Nigeria?

If the OP has a court marriage certificate, her husband is playing with 21yrs behind bars if she wants to expose him. The Nigerian marriage law is against polygamy except its done outside the registry.

ayinba1:
I am sure you have such laws in Nigeria. The moment the law begins to get properly enforced, the following will happen
1. Less men will desire to get married in courts
2. More married women will disappear or go missing
3. More kids will grow up with a single mother because daddy is in jail

Overall, it only massages the ego of the woman and most Nigerian women would still not go this route.

ayinba1:
I am sure you have such laws in Nigeria. The moment the law begins to get properly enforced, the following will happen
1. Less men will desire to get married in courts
2. More married women will disappear or go missing
3. More kids will grow up with a single mother because daddy is in jail

Overall, it only massages the ego of the woman and most Nigerian women would still not go this route.

cococandy:
Orthodox and even some big pentecostal churches have made it compulsory that every marriage must be registered in the marriage registry and the court will give the church the permission to wed the couple.
(Permission only given after investigations to prove that none of them has a spouse somewhere else)
Same thing as court marriage just that a minister is the person in charge of the ceremony.

Unless na mushroom church the guy wants to go to or maybe only traditional marriage he wants,there's no way he can run away from having a court registered marriage.

In which case,only a divorce (if his church permits) or the death of his wife can allow him a legal second wife.