First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Multiple Spouses
3692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/7/10
Sure, why not? I just don't think it's right that the man should be able to get it on with 5 wives and the woman can only make do with 1 husband.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 6/7/10
i think this is a clone thread

anyway, having multiple spouse is different from multiple sex.

there is a commitment in marriage.

also, i cannot bear to see my future wife with another man. she's mine.
Posted 6/8/10

alupihan45 wrote:

i think this is a clone thread

anyway, having multiple spouse is different from multiple sex.

there is a commitment in marriage.

also, i cannot bear to see my future wife with another man. she's mine.
She doesn't belong to anyone but to her own person, consider that the next time when you became obnoxiously selfish.
The Wise Wizard
100941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 6/8/10

idiotic_female wrote:

Sure, why not? I just don't think it's right that the man should be able to get it on with 5 wives and the woman can only make do with 1 husband.

True, but I believe the fact that while history has seen societies with one man and many wives, but rarely one woman and many husbands mostly has to do with biology.

It takes a woman 9 months to have a child, while during that same period, a man can impregnate many women. Polygamy was more prevalent in the past, when life was more labor intensive, the world's population was relatively small, and life expectancy was short. All of these meant that having as many children as quickly as possible was highly favorable.

Posted 6/8/10

TheAncientOne wrote:


idiotic_female wrote:

Sure, why not? I just don't think it's right that the man should be able to get it on with 5 wives and the woman can only make do with 1 husband.

True, but I believe the fact that while history has seen societies with one man and many wives, but rarely one woman and many husbands mostly has to do with biology.

It takes a woman 9 months to have a child, while during that same period, a man can impregnate many women. Polygamy was more prevalent in the past, when life was more labor intensive, the world's population was relatively small, and life expectancy was short. All of these meant that having as many children as quickly as possible was highly favorable.
I disagree base on the ground that while polyandry in Tibet was due to economical reason, polygamy OTOH is therefore economically advantageous for those who weren't the first born sons to accumulate vast resources within the context of primogeniture.

Furthermore, the "having as many children as quickly as possible" is in all actuality irrational and unsustainable within the context of conservationism.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 6/8/10
In some long ago it was to protect the weaker. Now it is done to spread religion most i have fundamental problems with. Here in the state Utah( Mind fart) with it religion made it grow very fast. But when some picker-wood plays the system and use children as wives to have more childern government money to provide for them. they should be locked up and never see the light of day.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 6/8/10

TheAncientOne wrote:


idiotic_female wrote:

Sure, why not? I just don't think it's right that the man should be able to get it on with 5 wives and the woman can only make do with 1 husband.

True, but I believe the fact that while history has seen societies with one man and many wives, but rarely one woman and many husbands mostly has to do with biology.

It takes a woman 9 months to have a child, while during that same period, a man can impregnate many women. Polygamy was more prevalent in the past, when life was more labor intensive, the world's population was relatively small, and life expectancy was short. All of these meant that having as many children as quickly as possible was highly favorable.



off topic

they have shorter life span? dude, they have the cleanest environment way back, freshest food and they can exercise more.

now back to topic
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 6/8/10

tarakelly wrote:

In some long ago it was to protect the weaker. Now it is done to spread religion most i have fundamental problems with. Here in the state Utah( Mind fart) with it religion made it grow very fast. But when some picker-wood plays the system and use children as wives to have more childern government money to provide for them. they should be locked up and never see the light of day.


i saw that on tv.
Posted 6/8/10

alupihan45 wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:


idiotic_female wrote:

Sure, why not? I just don't think it's right that the man should be able to get it on with 5 wives and the woman can only make do with 1 husband.

True, but I believe the fact that while history has seen societies with one man and many wives, but rarely one woman and many husbands mostly has to do with biology.

It takes a woman 9 months to have a child, while during that same period, a man can impregnate many women. Polygamy was more prevalent in the past, when life was more labor intensive, the world's population was relatively small, and life expectancy was short. All of these meant that having as many children as quickly as possible was highly favorable.



off topic

they have shorter life span? dude, they have the cleanest environment way back, freshest food and they can exercise more.

now back to topic
I beg to differ.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/10

idiotic_female wrote:

Sure, why not? I just don't think it's right that the man should be able to get it on with 5 wives and the woman can only make do with 1 husband.


Note the word 'multiple spouse', it isn't inclusive of a single gender. A woman, if rich enough, should be able to have as many husbands as she wishes.
3692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/8/10

orangeflute wrote:


idiotic_female wrote:

Sure, why not? I just don't think it's right that the man should be able to get it on with 5 wives and the woman can only make do with 1 husband.


Note the word 'multiple spouse', it isn't inclusive of a single gender. A woman, if rich enough, should be able to have as many husbands as she wishes.


O . o Oh, yeah, that's fair .. But most cultures today that actually approve of multiple spouses don't allow women to have husbands, anyway.
The Wise Wizard
100941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 6/8/10

alupihan45 wrote:
they have shorter life span? dude, they have the cleanest environment way back, freshest food and they can exercise more.

You really need to learn a bit more about history.

Disease alone was a majority factor in contributing to a substantially shorter average life span.

Sanitation was often lacking, especially in cities.

It doesn't help if food is fresh if it is often lacking in quantity, which was a common problem earlier in history.

It is concrete fact that average life expectancy was shorter in the past.
One example from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/241864.stm:

The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. In 1998, it is 76.

2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 6/8/10

TheAncientOne wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:
they have shorter life span? dude, they have the cleanest environment way back, freshest food and they can exercise more.

You really need to learn a bit more about history.

Disease alone was a majority factor in contributing to a substantially shorter average life span.

Sanitation was often lacking, especially in cities.

It doesn't help if food is fresh if it is often lacking in quantity, which was a common problem earlier in history.

It is concrete fact that average life expectancy was shorter in the past.
One example from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/241864.stm:

The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. In 1998, it is 76.



that is AD. How about BC?
Posted 6/8/10

alupihan45 wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:
they have shorter life span? dude, they have the cleanest environment way back, freshest food and they can exercise more.

You really need to learn a bit more about history.

Disease alone was a majority factor in contributing to a substantially shorter average life span.

Sanitation was often lacking, especially in cities.

It doesn't help if food is fresh if it is often lacking in quantity, which was a common problem earlier in history.

It is concrete fact that average life expectancy was shorter in the past.
One example from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/241864.stm:

The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. In 1998, it is 76.



that is AD. How about BC?
You seriously want to compare a time when a whole ethnicity got genocide due to religious reasons/intolerance?
The Wise Wizard
100941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 6/9/10

alupihan45 wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:
Disease alone was a majority factor in contributing to a substantially shorter average life span.

Sanitation was often lacking, especially in cities.

It doesn't help if food is fresh if it is often lacking in quantity, which was a common problem earlier in history.

It is concrete fact that average life expectancy was shorter in the past.
One example from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/241864.stm:

The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. In 1998, it is 76.


that is AD. How about BC?

Highest was a bit over 35, during the iron and bronze ages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#cite_note-sticerd.lse.ac.uk-8

It actually dropped to 28 during the classic Greek and Roman eras. My speculation is that may have been due to increased warfare, and greater mobility of the populace, leading to a greater spread of diseases.

If you are one of those types that immediately dismiss anything from Wikipedia as unreliable, please note the citations at the bottom of the article. The source for the iron and bronze age info appears to be an academic paper. The source for classic Greece and Rome is Britannica.com (the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica).
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.