If polygamy were common in your country, would you take a second spouse?

[Shogun Gunner]

I voted "yes" because I'm short sighted, stupid...and perhaps a bit drunk too.

[chequita guevara]

I think Bunnygrrl could use a wife.

[Dinner]

At a most basic level what man wouldn't want more then one girl? That's the theory but in real life instead of one woman mad at me because I had forgotten the 1.25 year anniversary (or something similarly daft) I would then have two women pissed off at me. Likely they'd team up against me as well.

Also I'm a hypocrite who wouldn't want them to have another man besides me. It's not fair but that's what I'd want.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Polygamy can work, but not with a misogynist structure.

Certainly, you can not have two women - one for cooking and one for cleaning as Jaguar (hopefully) jokes.

But you could have three people wo love each other, and it deffinately does not have to be multiple women to one man.

Just because you wouldn't do something doesn't mean it can't work. There are numerous misogynist polygamous societies throughout the world, and they work / worked. They just aren't as efficient as monogamy.

[Sikander]

It wouldn't be practical to do this here and now, but if the social structure supported it I would probably try and pick up another young wife ever 10 years or so.

[Starchild]

Humans just don't do polygamy all that well generally speaking. It tends to be a status symbol showing a man's wealth or position in society. Most human beings are serial monogamists, staying with one partner for extended lengths of time in a pair bond.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Starchild
Humans just don't do polygamy all that well generally speaking. It tends to be a status symbol showing a man's wealth or position in society. Most human beings are serial monogamists, staying with one partner for extended lengths of time in a pair bond.

It's remarkably common, though obviously it is more likely to be more of an emergency measure in vulnerable populations and more regular in warrior cultures where captives are often taken.

[Starchild]

Polygamous societies are remarkably common, but the actual practice isn't. As an emergency measure or in a warrior culture, it's still about status in society. Emergency measures such as keeping land in the family (like with the Toda tribe in India) help to keep the family's status and property. Warriors gather wives as symbols of status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Patterns of occurrence

At the same time, even within societies which allow polygamy, the actual practice of polygamy often occurs only rarely. To take on more than one wife often requires considerable financial resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China

Within polygamous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth and power. Conversely, within societies which formally prohibit polygamy, social opinion may look favorably on persons maintaining mistresses or engaging in serial monogamy.

Some observers detect a social preference for polygyny in disease-prone (especially tropical) climates, and speculate that (from a potential mother's viewpoint) perceived quality of paternal genes may favour the practice there. The countervailing situation allegedly prevails in harsher climates, where (once again from a potential mother's viewpoint) reliable paternal care as exhibited in monogamous pair-bonding outweighs the importance of paternal genes.

Humans aren't biologically designed for true polygamy anyway. Gorillas are proper polygamists, keeping large harems of fertile females. In turn, they are large animals (to scare/fight off potential rivals) but with proportionally small reproductive organs (once the harem is established the male has sole access to the females). Chimps are proper free love advocates. Their body size is smaller since they don't have to fight rivals for exclusive access to females but have proportionally larger organs since they now have to outcompete rivals inside the female's reproductive tract. Humans are built for serial monogamy with the unspoken assumption that both sides will cheat a bit to spread their genes/secure good genes.

[Rex Little]

Originally posted by Oerdin


If you can't trust the woman then you shouldn't be married to her. If you're just dating then yeah condoms might be a good idea but we're talking wives.

Great in theory, but the divorce courts are littered with cases where one spouse was sure (s)he could trust the other until it was too late. And on the specific issue of birth control, it's not at all unusual for a woman who thought she didn't want kids to change her mind when the biological clock starts ticking down. I speak from experience.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Starchild
Humans just don't do polygamy all that well generally speaking. It tends to be a status symbol showing a man's wealth or position in society. Most human beings are serial monogamists, staying with one partner for extended lengths of time in a pair bond.

Of course. Polygamy can't be widespread among a single population - there aren't enough women.

[chequita guevara]

I'll bet multiple husbands becomes an option for Chinese women, as there are thre hundred million less Chinese women than men.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Starchild
Polygamous societies are remarkably common, but the actual practice isn't. As an emergency measure or in a warrior culture, it's still about status in society. Emergency measures such as keeping land in the family (like with the Toda tribe in India) help to keep the family's status and property. Warriors gather wives as symbols of status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Humans aren't biologically designed for true polygamy anyway. Gorillas are proper polygamists, keeping large harems of fertile females. In turn, they are large animals (to scare/fight off potential rivals) but with proportionally small reproductive organs (once the harem is established the male has sole access to the females). Chimps are proper free love advocates. Their body size is smaller since they don't have to fight rivals for exclusive access to females but have proportionally larger organs since they now have to outcompete rivals inside the female's reproductive tract. Humans are built for serial monogamy with the unspoken assumption that both sides will cheat a bit to spread their genes/secure good genes.

I guess we'll just have to agree to agree.

[Patroklos]

When I was in Dubai, I asked a rug merchant I was chatting with about it.

In the UAE, you can have up to four wives, and you don't have to be muslim. However, before you can get the license you have to be able to prove you can support each in a seperate houshold.

So there is the rub, you have four wives, but the wives in practice still have one husband. I like this method, makes sure all the woman are taken care of. And when you get in a fight with one, you just move to the next house.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Sikander


I guess we'll just have to agree to agree.

We're agreeing? Goddamn A&E Biography special! Never again shall you cause me to divide my attention!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sikander


Just because you wouldn't do something doesn't mean it can't work. There are numerous misogynist polygamous societies throughout the world, and they work / worked.

Yes, and there's alot of other abusive relationships that "work", too.