₦airaland Forum

Ok.. you win

and everybody believes in Allah and Jehovah?

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?

They may be preserving a measure of dignity

They may be trying to stayaway from sex as a means of penance for a past life

When u say relationship, are u talking of something marriage bound or just anyhow anyhow relationship

Ezegozie: Most annoying thing about this is that

Most of them claiming HOLY THAN THOU are not virgins

so if you are not a virgin, what are you preserving?

An already opened parcel?

Some Boy's eyes need to be open.

But i am sure one day, it willl be opened

You asked me a rhetorical question yet expect me to answer

bukatyne: You have not answered my question

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?

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/

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

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.

ok

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.

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

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

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

vivalableue: You are saying that a woman should consider her emotional attachment to a man,but the man is okay to trample on hers

C'mon, I'm really tired of this rhetoric that we should be the ones to suffer and remember the years of marriage. If he wants to remarry, let us divorce fairly and he start from scratch with the new lady. Why should she enjoy the life that I built up? To have me go from the woman in the house to one of the subordinate in the household?

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

this is the first testimony ive heard of NL marriage
Nice

Happy Married Life OP!

PS Maybe open a thread for the people who need inspiration
It seems some females are trying to outdo each other in the who is mouthed competition

diegs: The mere fact that he was courting the other lady while married sums up to infidelity. Do you think the man wasn't sexually active with the girlfriend while married?

Read what is being said

To the best of my knowlegde African Traditional Religions, Islam, Judaism and Xtianity frown on sexual relations outside marriage

The issue here is what constitutes the marriage

cisplatin: Fat mons pubis I love fat mons pubis

as in.. the camel toe is somethin else

This issue is still a big one sadly

There are no boundaries between the people of authority and those in school
The govt does not help matters as enforcement is nil


These young students (both female and male) are impressionable

aisha2: This brings a lot of sad memories to my heart.
One teacher very harsh and strict punished me one day, he asked me to kneel down during the evening games in my games wear in the lab. I knelt down for like an hour rill it started getting dark.

At about 6. 30 he came and grabbed my small breasts, the look in his eyes and his obvious erection was nauseating to say the least. I pushed him off and ran out despite him trying to block me. I ran straight to the senior boarding house mistress house and reported. The next day I was called to a panel to repeat what happened, I did he denied it said I was simply trying to get out of punishment by lying against him. One of the penalist accused me of trying to seduce the teacher with my sports skirt. This was the skirt issued by the school oh.

It was like a gang up, small student against one of their kind, I was treated like a criminal, teachers not wanting to have me in their class, students gossiping about me, pointing at me. The rumours and lies, accusations and stories, I understand how rape victims feel, not everyone is strong enough to report sex- ual harassment.

It was my word against his, luckily I had a good reputation, I had good grades, he couldn't give a satisfactory reason for keeping me in the lab till dark, he had been seen severally with female students coming our of the lab, he was suspended and later transfered to an all boys college. It was after the storm had passed before I had girls coming up to me and tell me he had forced them to play with his pen- is, some he has penetrated, some Henham fondled but they refused to come forward feeling they had some fault in it, believing no one would believe them, afraid of the stigna

bukatyne: The infidelity is not necessarily physical; the Bible says any man who thinks of sleeping with a woman (not a wife) in his heart, he has committed adultery

Now, when a man wants to marry another wife, he must court her (not necessarily sex et al) first before the marriage. The act of courting her is the infidelity (I am talking of religious/moral folks who do no sex before 'marriage')

Besides, we know that most men married their girlfriends who got pregnant or decided to 'hook' him.

It is well

And the bolded does not occur when a single man wants to court a single woman?
Since to you the act of courting is lust

TV01: Firstly, I don't agree that the fact that something is legally codified necessarily makes it moral. Gay marriage?

The major thing is that you look at this issue from the lens of christianity
Monogamy as a way of life is less than 2000 y old

Secondly, please explain how a man who takes a second wife is being faithful to the first? And why one of his multiple wives taking another husband is not permitted and/or considered "faithful"?

Ditto..same as above.. your lens
Fidelity is staying with the wife(s) in the union whether mono or poly

Each marriage is a seperate contract - in order to fulfil one, he has to breach the other/s.
Otherwise we are talking polyamory - where all parties must agree.

I appreciate that it is cuturally, religiously and legally permissable to some, but scrutinising the logic of it clearly shows it's flaws. The actual dynamic of polygamous homes is even more telling. Even a glowing reference of his personal experience by tbaba merely reveals that as the exception rahter than the norm.

We can blather on about this till cock crow at dawn. But the truth is evident. Monogamy is superior ATBE, with polygamy perhaps being a useful short-term measure in times of great stress - at best.


TV

^{...lol, I didn't say rooster 0!}

ok

soonest: Who says polygamous men don't cheat? In fact they are the greater cheats. So the notion that as a wife in such a setting u will knw who ur husb is sleeping with doesn't hold water at all. A cheat is a cheat even when he has 100 wives.
I wish the Op had opened this thread as a diary like pickabeau said, so that it doesn't turn into a religious thing cos it's brewing

So far its being cordial.. slightly brewing beneath the surface
Its only a matter of time in my opinion

The only thing thats kept it mellow so far is the admission of the OP that she is from a non-Islamic household

TV01

infidelity as an act occurs outside the marriage whether monogamous or otherwise

Polygamy is not infidelity as long as the sexual affairs are kept within the union

That a polygamous mindset is more likely to lead to infidelity as it's taken for granted is not in doubt

In the old days there were still taboos to ensure women did not sleep around
Whether mono or poly, few men want to raise another man's child

So to say polygamy is infidelity is still reaching
However I agree the mindset is more likely

yeyenatu: true but it also has its issues too. my sister is married as a second wife and she has her own house. her husby is a afternoon and second weekend husband. even my little niece, when she sees her father she would ask if it was time for lunch already. each has its own jare.

YYN

Yes it have its drawbacks but better than having two women in the same space
Catfights!

OP

why does your hubby want to accept the second wife in the same house
Polygamy is better managed with the women in different living quarters
That is why it s not for middle income households
That is a recipe for issues

Moca
I'm so eased up


I don't see where the seriousness is
I'm also having fun here

We have small peepee
You lot experience small peepee too

See...all fun and games -_-

MizMyColi: You've prolly heard me quote this passage of scripture: There's a spirit in man........

We can all avoid THAT kind of judging when relating with Humans, but that's if we choose to THINK

Is it Thoughtful, Helpful, Inspiring, Necessary, KIND.

So now we see its not all kind of judging you have an issue with but the potential of it to harm

ok

How would your opinion of an issue and the reaction be pre determined?

You may say one thing and one person loves you for being honest and another hates u for correcting him

In that case, since i dont know whether my 'correction'/admonition(judgement to you... will have positive or negative effect maybe its best one says nothing eh?


All is fair in love.. kumbaya

MizMyColi: If my expressed opinion of a person would leave them worse than I met them, I'd rather shut up.

Of course, you could term it that, if you wish.
But then, I think we all have an idea of the kind of judging/judgment I meant.

orbis: OK the ladies here say majority of naija men have small peewies. ...now let's take it to the next level. How big is your husband or boyfriend's peewies? Do they also fall into the majority or they are amongst the few blessed with mind boggling womb pockers

Lol....gobe question.

that one go enter voice mail



Edwife...Funny post...

MizMyColi: Certainly not, but I want a world where we can correct or talk to people in Gentleness, without being so full of wrath, causing them to quiver in fear, in a puddle of tears.

I desire a world where we can love people out of their mistakes where our words bring healing to others. Not leaving them scarred, fearful to give themselves another chance and brow beaten

Correcting in gentleness..


In that case is that not judging only with a difference in approach

crackhaus: Indeed.
Some unfortunate cliches.

family sexsion

the third one.. what is negative to one may be otherwise to another....relative

ditto for the second one second part

so you want a world where there r no standards, just fuzzy non condemnation

kumbaya

MizMyColi: The third one precisely and the second part of the second one

3cycle: Wasn't it obvious that the thread was just for laff and shouldn't be taken seriously?

I guess jokes are not for you, your brain is too busy to code one

your brain is also too busy to crack one also

tiit for taat all join

3cycle: You think I don't know that the reason for your attack was because of the thread about short people where I made comments about nwakpuda's like you?
Go and rest

you call this an attack?!

this attitude of narrow mindedness people show these days is really perplexing

i commented that your OP engenders harmful stereoptypes on men being cheats and the only thing that clicked in your head is that i am attacking you for your posts on another thread?

Damn... really interesting what goes on in your head.

Go and rest also

No need to respond to this... since we are both supposed to be resting

back to this short issue.. u seem to be brimming full of stereotypical mumbo jumbo... whats the correlation between height and not being amused by a trollish thread..

is it really that much of a game changer for you...does the thought of being with a short person traumatise u so much

i did not invite the other lady.. so leave her out of it...

be careful oo.... it may be your destiny to marry a short man ooo

3cycle: No need inviting your woman friend to join in our discussion
Both of you can exchange pleasantries and kiss yourselves all you want, free space.

Pained? Only short people like you are pained by harmless thread
Enjoy

3cycle: You must be pained

No..im not

are u pained?