₦airaland Forum

coogar: the world would pass you by if you continue to hold rigidly to these traditional norms. things have changed drastically. in this day & age where married couples willingly invite a 3rd party to their bedroom for the fun of it, you are still thinking polygamy is flawed? that opinion is so 1934.

Truth dates? Polygamy is not fit for purpose. Never has been.Why are the Israelis and Arabs involved in perpetual conflict?

coogar: look around you, women have made giant strides over the last 50 years. the stats are grim. more women have college degrees than men. matter of fact, the only category you would find more men than women is in the prison system - otherwise, women outnumber men in any age group after childhood.

Please evidence this. It's patently false.
Son preference in places like China and India mean that globally men outnumber women.

coogar: this disproportion puts women at a big disadvantage. they have fewer choices of a marital partner than the men. should a woman then marry down because she's got a tiny pool of marital partners to choose from or she shouldn't marry at all because all her male counterparts with the same college degrees have been taken? or perhaps you prefer her to engage homosëxuality?

As above.
Additionally, even if the factors you mention are valid - to anything other than a tiny degree - the problem is not one of numbers, but socio-economic class. In which case, women can learn to marry down - or out - as men have been doing for centuries .

coogar: who's going to marry all these female graduates that abound everywhere you look since men seem to have stopped pulling their weights? it won't be long now - polygamy would be made legal starting from the US & the UK. the available eligible men cannot simply go round and something would have to give in on the long run.

Lots of butchers, road-sweepers, shelf-stackers, conductors etc. Equality is with us, you are the one that's dated - Carefreewannabe PM'ed to advise me that she has her eye on one bellboy like this. Works for a very prestigious hotel...and he's name is Lee-Hwang . Alutacontinua - our resident thought-leader and world-changing, high-achiever has expressed interest in a mini-cab controller from Peckham. To save costs, I'm Mc'ing free at both receptions !

coogar: as it is today, a woman has 3 choices....

•hope there is a good single man available
•steal another woman's husband
•settle for polygamy

the last option is the most feasible out of the three.

Notice how you qualified polygamy with "settle"? ATBE it's a distant second . If we get to a ratio of 7 adult women to every male, it may prove temporary respite. It will not however change the fact that the best men will corral the finest women. Poor men and unfine women will suffer whatever the ratio or model .


TV

coogar: i strongly disagree with this bit. no marriage system is flawed if the people in it practise mutual respect. the chaos in polygamy is also present in monogamy if not more........

Polygamy is structurally flawed. A structurally flawed model will always produce sub-optimal returns.

Monogamy is the perfect vehicle for human pair-bonding and the resultant offspring, All that is required in a marriage are a male & a female. The addition of an extra person - of either sex does not enhance it, and at the same time introduces problems.

Structural deficiencies:
It inherently considers womens agency, needs, desires and worth as secondary to mens. No gainsaying.

It also means less relative attention and resource for each child.

Practical problems:
For starters, the womans emotional & physical needs are now secondary to the mans. And the more wives, the less likely those needs are to be satisfied. Men are relatively more physical and women emotional. The man gets a super-abundance of his needs and the women a vastly diminished experience. It is also psychologically traumatic for the women, especially the first wife - evidence OP.

Unhealthy rivalry amongst the wives is quite endemic and this is usually transferred to the children and often outlives the man. Abuse of children is also more likely - byco=wives and step-siblings.

Societal issues:
The natural birthrate is about 105/100 boys to girls. In a flourishing well ordered soceity it simply doesn't work. It would create imbalance. Without the incentive of a wife and family, young men tend to become "feral" and do not produce at high levels? Why would they?

Even where it is permitted it always remains a minority model.

Scrutinised closer one will see many other insidious outworkings of this practice. Feel free to solicit real life testimonies form Landers. Bellong 0!

Monogamy works is practiced properly. ATBE, there is nothing edifying about polygamy - it's a wandering todger scam.


TV

tintingz: Whether they dream o or they didn't dream, some women still accept polygamy marriage proposal.

https://www.i4m.com/think/photos/sister-wives.jpg

https://www.i4m.com/think/photos/FLDS-polygamy.jpg

https://www.i4m.com/think/photos/polygamy_big_love_hbo.jpg

Why do these women "choose" polygamy. TV I'm now using choose

As previously stated, the chose to accept. Granted. Why? For a number of possible reasons. The questions should be;

- Was it their preferred arrangement
- Are they satisfied
- With hindsight, would they do it again if given the chance or opt for monogamy

That is how to converse, not with unthinking assertions. I may well say things like they ar old, ugly and fat - being the reason for their choices. Or claim they don't look that happy - although the men all look quite smug -but I'll speak factually or by clear observation.

So pictures aside, what's the story behind these?


TV

Godmystrength: Minus the bre@sts, He/She still looks like a man IMO. Did he still keep his instrument @picture 1 #see her crotch region?

Totally agree.In the 3rd picture he looks like an out and out drag queen...bi-curious, queer, transgender, transvestite....whatever....!

TV

tintingz: The fact still remains that wife second, third, forth prefer to marry a man with a wife already.

That is not a fact - its a mere assertion.

What you can state is that "wife second, third, forth choose to marry a man with wife already". The choice is not necessarily a preference - and more likely a percieved neccessity.

How true can it be to say that most women - of any culture or background - grow up dreaming & planning to be one of many wives?


TV

cococandy: You're deliberatly not getting me.
I know.
If their acting out affects the next person,is still ok then?
Whatever they do as long as it doesn't affect the next person negatively,I don't care.
But when it does,then they have to answer for it.

At some point you'll have to take a stance either way.
That it's normal and to be celebrated is now being embedded in school curricula.

In my son's nursery, there were pictures of all kinds of "diverse families" and lots of meme of equality and inclusion.
At 12 months old? I had to move my pup to a "Christian nursery"

By the time they hit grade school they are introducing full-on sexuality - in all it's diverse glory. I wan tht esole responsibility to introducing my children to ssex and ssexuality. So what happens if we can't afford independent education or don't want our children educated far away?

Live and let live may be diplomatic, but it's not practical. They won't leave it until you celebrate it.


TV

Shirley07: Before or after the MMA were aware she was a man? That's where your logic is flawed.
Also, competitor should be informed about their opponent before they stepped into the ring. I'm quite sure the MMA will have a review of the whole thing after the incidence.

cococandy: @ pickabeau,going by this thread alone,it wasn t indicated that his opponet knew BEFORE the fight.
Unless there's another article explaining that.
Even then,if she knew it before hand,her accepting to fight would be because of the misleading conclusion that a transgender man is a woman through and through.
I guess now she knows better.

Long short is that she was MMA board licenced to compete as a woman. That satisfies. Legally it's no ones business that she used to be a he. And contrary thought or utterances will be classified as bigotry.

Any born female competitor who refuses to face a trans oponent wil be labelled hateful and bigoted. Any board that tries to make the distinction - i.e. discriminate - will be targetted and lobbied against.

It's here already


TV

cococandy: Yes anyone can do what they want with their bodies. Who says I've to be ok with it?
Recognizing that I don't have a say in what anyone wants to do with their body makes it easier for me to deal with seeing such things happen.

I don't consider gender and sex to be different. I only said I recognize that some people do.
For me being born in a male body or female body makes one inherently so.
But I recognize the fact that there's a different school of thought.

I don't have opinions about transgender folks.I don't understand how someone born female will think she's male inside.so I can't have an opinion on something I don't know how it feels.
But I respect their feelings and will regard them the way they want to be regarded.

Only that I'm not gay. So if a man who used to be woman decieves me into a relationship,I'll be mighty pissed. Or woman who used to be man comes to compete with me in a fight,I'll see it as deceptive.

And a stance that is true to conservative instincts mixed with liberal values. Deftly worded.

The problem is that those of us who don't agree with such - transgender competing, "gay marriage" etc. - will be labelled bigots and forced to endorse and support it.

So for example a baker will have to bake cakes celebrating SSM and a photographer forced to cover "gay weddings". Your position is workable as a "live and let live" proposition, but that is not enough fo rthese lbbies. You have to endorse, if not outright celebrate.


I do like a fit chick sha!


TV

This kind of gender based confusion is not new. Google Chloie Jonnson, a Crossfit athlete who sued for not being allowed to compete as a woman.

It's just odd, confusing and frankly a little bit sick. And I speak as one who really appreciates fit - as in athlectic, sporty - women.



TV

Morning Pickabeau....errr which of the [s]two men in the picture used to be a woman[/s]? Sorry two women used to be a man !

I have confuse!


TV

yeyenatu: Which is? You'd have to pinpoint it. So I can really get it.

You can't comprehend. Your whole arguement is not even about marriage, it's about how a woman responds to a mans unfettered lust within it.

yeyenatu: issues are abound in every marriage, oga Ade.

Practically maybe, but in monogamy, it's not by design, not in principle and not as standard.

yeyenatu: equality is in the mind oooo. If she doesn't fee equal to him, he'd walk all over her regardless of the kind of marriage they are in.

By definition, if a man has 2 or more wives, none of them can have worth equal to his.

yeyenatu: There are children of monogamous homes that are way twisted than the kids from polygamous homes. Depends on how they are brought up by their parents. #parents# not the marriage per se.

And your assertion does not change the structural deficiencies in polygamy.

yeyenatu: So a father can't give love to his child because he has two wives? Or a father showers TLC on his wife and child only because he is in a monogamous marriage.

Men typically love their offspring regardles. That is not in question. Their ability to do so unrestrained with multiple wives is.

yeyenatu: Fa fa foul!!!! I'm the love of my father's life ooo! In fact, we all are!!! I'm from a polygamous home, I don't have any regret having a step mum. She is awesome, to us and to her 'iyale'. Why? Upbringing! There brats brought up in some monogamous homes that shouldn't even be married sef. Jst saying#

You don;t make a case for polygamy by trashing others practice of monogamy. Emotive, assertive, but not of the required level. Peole here are somewhat discerning

yeyenatu: none is superior. Superiority shouldn't even come into play here ni. Se finis!!

Au contraire - monogamy clearly is - as demonstrated. You couldn't even extol the virtues of polygamy, you went straight to formulating responses to a man with an itch in his pants. You are both subject to his lustful nature.

yeyenatu: hmmmmm... now back to gender equality again. Religion allows it, so he has a choice to do it. She can leave the religion if it doesn't suit her life choices. And admiring other people? That's why I mentioned that 'people' are the one with the issh.

As stated, that something as allowed by religion or by law, does not make it sound. And I've clearly stated that I'm not having that discussion.

yeyenatu: I'm not going to go into gender equality issh here. There is a religion that's allows more than one wife and there is one that doesn't. If you want to choose your faith because of your view on marital isshs, go for it!!!

No bender politics either. Just the structure of both models.

yeyenatu: Niqqa pls!!!!! That's just you saying women are inferior, got nothing to do with the issue of marriage or its types.

Nope, polygamy by definition makes women inferior. In agency, in need and in worth. It's a little sad that a woman would actually argue for it.

yeyenatu: I say what I wanna say. If it's agreeable to people? Jolly good. It can also be frowned at by others. But it's my opinion. Not saying it to dîkk ride. Are you?

Nope, just objectively showing why it's a bad all round deal. Not good for men, women or the flourishing of society and not widely taken up even where it is legal. No country in the world has a majority of polygamous marriage. Flawed by design and even against nature given a natural birthrate of around 105 boys to 100 girls


I have made my points in this discussion without recourse to religion or even morality. I have merely parsed the structural outworking of polygamy, and where needed, in contrast to monogamy.

Someone for polygamy earlier stated that "all men are cheaters". It's that kind of thinking you need to sell to yourself to whole-heartedly accept polygamy. I thank God that I stand in direct testimony against that statement and that type of thinking.

I'm beginning to loop and neither YYN - who made a spirited but ultimately substanceless effort - nor her phantom constituency have made anything but assertions.

I'm here if you have anything new and relevent to share.

Best
TV

tintingz: Ofcos widows can marry single people, but in Nigeria men prefer fresh single ladies.

As obtains everywhere. Likewise for baby mamas. So what's your point? Does polygamy restrict multiple wives to the widowed or baby mamas? Do the vast majority of multiple wives have that status prior to marriage?

tintingz: In many polygamy marriages wives don't live under same roof, things have change in these new age.

So a wife and children do not have immediate access to the husband. He is not constantly interacting with his spouse and children?
When jnr falls ill, the father may be busy elsewhere? Or at critical periods in a wife or childs life, he will not be able to devote his full attention to them. Another flaw of polygamy

tintingz: and what her the reason to marry?

Best ask OP.

But it's certain that most multiple wives are not due to being widows, baby mamas or older singles

tintingz: some women who ran to men as second wife did for security, wealth etc you will see them with chiefs. .

I'm not denying it as a choice, I'm not even parsing it morally, merely showing that structurally polygamy is flawed.

tintingz: Please, can you state why women in polygamy marriage prefer the marriage than monogamy, why will a woman agree to be a second, third, forth wife of a man.

I can think of a number of reasons. Why not invite them to say? I'd say some are are due to the reasons you mentioned, but many out of greed or desperation. And why do you assume women in polygamy prefer polygamy? It's probably needs and situation driven. And please poll 1st wives and ask them if they prefer polygamy. I'd wager that even those 1st wives who accept it, would not prefer it.


TV

yeyenatu: One: I don't know which point you are referring to. The one you want me to see or the one there is to see.

The obvious one you are in denial about.

yeyenatu: Two: superior in what ways? From what point of view? Monogamy means one man-one wife, right? Yeah... why not?! its fun, you can be carefree and relaxed and not bother as you are now the 'mrs'.!

Monogamy is superior simply because it gives equal agency to both partners and provides the ideal setting to meet their individual needs and requirements of their children. Polygamy does not enhance it in any way and introduces a slew of issues and potential problems.

Alternatively you can simply explain why monogamy is not superior or why polygamy is superior, instead of asserting it's just as good and merely a choice - like attending OAU or Harvard. Apologies to OAU'ites !

yeyenatu: But it doesn't make it better than the guys who thinks they found love somewhere else but would rather bring her home for his wife to accept or not accept, than abhor lustful thoughts every single period of oneness being shared. Nothing makes monogamy superior than polygamy. Each has its pros and cons. And choices, he takes her or he doesn't. She stays or she doesn't. Choices.

How glaring? And yet the girl who finds romance with someone else is not simply free to introduce fyneflyguy to the marital home? All you've done here is state that polygamy is about mens desires - as I've maintained all along.

yeyenatu: No one whose region doesn't allow it/explain it, should indulge in it. A wife married into a certain religion whose teachings give room to it shouldn't really cry foul. Should just hope for respect and understanding of her feelings by her man. Communication! Communication!!

I fully appreciate that some people, cultures, or religions practice it and that some jurisdictions have legalised it. Neither am I being prescriptive about it - merely descriptive. As you yourself have outlined, monogamy is superior - starting with it's fairness and equally valuing both parties.

yeyenatu: Third: choices!!! We all have moments of sadness. It's not every time we have that "oh alalah' kind of feelings. Acceptance just makes things a lot easier in such situations. Human are general ever satisfied.

Emotive and funny. In polygamy, the real choices are with the man. The womans choice is whether to accept the mans choice - which is no choice really.

yeyenatu: Four: a woman that has issues with her complex, regardless of the kind of marriage she is in, would still have issues. Inferior?! Really?! She is a being that has every right to do what makes her happy. Even if its leaving a marriage that is going to involve other people. I'm fabulous and firm. In whatever type of marriage, I WILL shine! It's a decision and a choice.

And polygamy introduces complexes for women by it's very design. But of course, a "multiple" wife has to form differently or face the truth of her situation.

yeyenatu: Fantasy marriage? Well, I don't give a rat's... about what men think of it. to each his own.

The most laughable part of all, polygamy is exactly that - all about what the men think !

All very emotive but with no real substance. And the people affirming your posts well know this - so don't comment.

And way to argue that men and their desires have primacy over women and their needs.


TV

yeyenatu: All are flawed. What makes monogamy sound in principle? The oneness of the spouse? Even when he has several others that are sharing his heart and attention and love even. But only one owning his 'name'. That makes it better than several 'Mrs'.

Again, you either miss or ignore the point;

If a man in a monogamous marriage has several others sharing his heart or bed he is breaching monogamy by definition - he is actually being polygamous - that is bad practice, nothing to do with the principle of monogamy per se. Monogamy in principle is far superior to polygamy.

yeyenatu: Practicably, all have issues and its because we as individuals have issues. not the choices of marriage. A flawed woman will make a flawed wife. A flawed man will make a flawed husband regardless of the kind of marriage they are in.

And that relates to practice, which I clearly stated can be flawed in both types.

yeyenatu: Wives in a polygamous home can stand united while the wife in a monogamous home maybe of a messed up morals/mind.

That is not an argument about principles, but about practice - the opposite could just as well obtain. And even if the wives "stand united", it doesn't mean that they are happy or prefer the situation.

yeyenatu: And vice versa, but that doesn't make each of these horrible. It's just the people in it.

As above.


Polygamy, by design affords the woman less agency in the union and considers her needs as inferior to the mans. Regardless of the characters of the participants, it engenders a whole slew of issues and potential problems that monogamy does not.

It's Fantasy marriage for men !


TV

yeyenatu: Smh

Polygamy isn't all evils. Like monogamy, it ain't all roses.

You still miss the point;

Polygamy is flawed in principle and in practice!

Monogamy is sound in principle but can be badly practiced.


Graciás


TV

Akdegreat: This mum is more of an artist.

A "piss-artist" by the sound of things - no pun intended!


TV

moca: I'm happy some men here outrightly condem this injustice to fellow human.
Kudos.
Where r those men that carry polygamy for head?
Come and argue ur case with fellow men.
Again, man's inhumanity to fellow human all because of culture and religion.
And by d way, I was told we used to go naked in d olden days, so how come we r covering up now?
Yeyebrity at its peak.

....and I'm equally unhappy that some women are justyfying it. Most especially those not living it? Let's not make it about sex sha!

cococandy: She speaks like it would be easy to assert authority over a full grown woman coming in to live with one as the newly found favorite who's giving what the first wife lacked in the first place to warrant such occurence.

The best she can pray for is that the new woman is peaceful and willing to accommodate.

...abi? Like hot air will cool a heated situation. That ones people sef may be steeling her to not take any shit from the "old woman" and to do her best to ensure her husband favours her.

Even if she's humble, she still cannot legislate for the likely favouritism shown by the husband or heal the trauma of the incumbent - afterall, it's her very presence that caused it!


TV

texanomaly: Do you know what an Antonym is?

Do you normally answer questions with other questions?


TV

tintingz: How many single Nigerian men is ready to marry a baby mama?

Even if the man is ready to marry a baby mama, will the man's family bless the union?

and if she decide to live as a single mother, she won't hear word from Nigerians with their big mouth.

Take a poll - on NL sef;

1. How many people grow up and planning or dreaming to marry a single parent?
2. How many plan on being one?
3. How many wish it for their loved ones
4. How many think it is best for them & why? Or why not?

Whatever term you use to describe societies stigma of it - which is for good reason - even if it is not evident or people pay it no mind, you still cannot deny people their preferences.

Just like men typically want young and fresh women and women prefer men who are dominant providors - both "preferring", if not outright "scorning" those who do not fit - you can rail against cultural morés all you want, but you can't deny fundamental biological imperatives.

I see polygamy as fraud.


TV

texanomaly: No!

It's the fact that those words are said with such disdain that leads them there.

dis·dain
disˈdān/
noun
1.
the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.
"her upper lip curled in disdain"
synonyms: contempt, scorn, scornfulness, contemptuousness, derision, disrespect.

Antonmys for disdain include;

admiration
affection
approval
flattery
liking
love
praise
regard
respect
compliment
esteem
favor

Should society view baby mamaism and divorce in those terms?


TV

tintingz: • widows

Widows can marry single people, divorcees or other widowers. And I refer specifically to "the younger widowers. At an age, many prefer to remain single.

tintingz: • divorced women

As previous. And the remedy for one ill is not to introduce another.

tintingz: • single old ladies

As previous

tintingz: • baby mamas

As previous. And the remedy for one ill is not to introduce another.

tintingz: This are the stigma Nigerian women face.

A number of things here;

1. These are the stigma & misfortune that women face everywhere. Divorce and baby mama'ism are not best for a flourishing society. Losing a spouse is tragic, but it unfortunately happens. Should women with husbands venture to marry widowers? Or is that the prefered solution for widowers?

2. In all the case mentioned, the arrival of a new woman on another womans territory casues upheaval, at best the incumbent may manage the situation, but it is rearely the case that she sees it as best for her and her children.

3. As in the case in question - i.e. the OP - the vast majority of additional wives will not touch the categories outlined. Men typically accumulate younger, fresher wives - which also adds to the incumbents psychological trauma - lets not decieve anyone here.

We are men, we don't have a young pretty wife at home and then start coveting the older not-as-nubile woman outside. There would have to be another reason for that - riches, connections, prestige etc. - non of which are reasons to marry. And neither is the "charitable" reason you are insinuating.

tintingz: This are what lead/led many women into polygamy marriages, is it not beneficial to them?

Not more than marginally so - to them and society - and there are better and preferred solutions as well as greater costs than any benefit. Like I said the vast majority of additional wives do not fall into the categories you outlined. It's basically a wandering dick scam.


TV

yeyenatu: Define yourself as the one who is in charge of the house, including her.

Really? The one who had any semblance of authority in the home or equity in the relationship grasped from her - cruelly and against her will -should now form "Lady at the Top"? And the new wife - who everything suggests will at least for now be more favoured - will just accede to that?

yeyenatu: Take that stand and be firm. Be more than a wife now, be THE wife.

You can only be "the wife", if you are the only wife. Neither they or anyone following - which is still a possibility se? - have any stand. The battle is for favour, not authority.

Talking up situations and chest thumping does not change reality. Don't glorify what is wrong, aspire to what right.


TV

ayinba1: Well I hope she is reading this

I won't allow it. I don't want her to get ideas. As much of a man that I am, I niether want nor need another wife !


TV

^{...if there is anything virtuous, anything beneficial, anything praiseworthy, anything endearing about polygamy, please share...}

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

...ah! the "H" word!!! Please don't give someone HBP 0 !

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

It hasn't changed and will still be the model - if not legal form - of some even where polygamy is pro-scribed. Mistesses and concubines are very evident in the West.

However, without being overly delicate, woman will still need intimacy and where the man with the means is unable or otherwise occupied, men of lower rank can garner a little something.

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

First, on the whole, polygamy creates way more issues than it resolves. I repeat, the only thing polygamy really serves are mens lustful desires. Even if polygamy helps reduce the number of widows; it will disproportionately increase the number of singles. As has been noted, polygamists are not for the most part marrying aged singles or widows. Like Western men trading their forty year old for a newer model, polygamists just start a collection !

And the dynamics are much worse for women and children. The wives can't even be indignant or righteously outraged.


TV

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

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


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

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.

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

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

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/

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

pickabeau1: The issue here is what constitutes the marriage

...and faithfulness...and morality

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

Not if there are laws like what obrtain in the West. It means even weak women can take advantage of a strong man.

ATBE, for the best outcome for all concerned, properly instituted monogamous marriage can't be beat.

I think I'm done here unless anyone introduces a new angle or responds to one of my hitherto unanswered questions.


TV

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

pickabeau1: The major thing is that you look at this issue from the lens of christianity

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.

pickabeau1: Monogamy as a way of life is less than 2000 y old

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?

pickabeau1: Fidelity is staying with the wife(s) in the union whether mono or poly

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: 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

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

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"?

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 rather 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!}

texanomaly: First of all, in a polygamous relationship, the parties are married.
Infidelity is defined as...

1. marital disloyalty; adultery.

2. unfaithfulness; disloyalty.

Whereas polygamy is defined as...

the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, especially wife, at one time.

Where is this infidelity you speak of?

Not because of, but despite the experiences recounted here, polygamy is by definition flawed.

If a man has one one and marries another, how is he remaining faithful to the first wife?
If a man has 2 or more wives, are any of the wives permitted to marry another man and still be considered faithful?

Not only flawed but impossible to truly follow where it leads. It's infidelity by fiat - but still infidelity. There it is - in plain sight - by definition.

texanomaly: At least you know who your husband is sleeping with. Does a woman with a cheating husband know who, or how many woman her husband is sleeping with? Does she know if the other women are healthy or disease ridden?

I laugh. So because a man has two or more wives, they must of a necessity know who he is sleeping with? Or he is somehow magically prevented from lying with anyone not "a wife".

A polygamous mindset is more likely to lead to infidelity as it's taken for granted. It's expected. Polygamy is in many cultures pretty much twinned with concubinage.

texanomaly: Now let's ask the question again.

A wife in a polygamous marriage knows exactly who her husband is sleeping with, and who the other wife is sleeping with. Is a monogamous marriage to a philandering "holy man" a "better deal"?

First, as explained earlier, you opened with a misstatement - an assertion that is still more likely of a monogamous relationship than a polygamous one.

Second, the obtuse reference to religion apart - which I did not touch on as monogamy is not solely a religious notion - at least in monogamy there is the expectation of fidelity, and recourse to repentance or remedy if there is a breach. A woman in a polygamous marriage is efectively saying she welcomes and endorses legally endorsed infidelity.


TV