First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
Polygamy
Posted 3/12/11

NE1469 wrote:



Polygamy is perfect. If one wife has a headache, another is sure to not be suffering the same affliction.
Nope, that's no enough to outweigh the human natural tendency of jealousy in a close relationship. When in fact the headache could very well be the indication of jealousy in the first place.


NE1469 wrote:



For the wives can have jobs of their own.

Also not true in all societies that practice polygamy. When a woman can't work outside of home, the only way to gain wealth would be through the practice of dowry.
Posted 3/12/11

DomFortress wrote:


NE1469 wrote:



Polygamy is perfect. If one wife has a headache, another is sure to not be suffering the same affliction.
Nope, that's no enough to outweigh the human natural tendency of jealousy in a close relationship. When in fact the headache could very well be the indication of jealousy in the first place.


NE1469 wrote:



For the wives can have jobs of their own.

Also not true in all societies that practice polygamy. When a woman can't work outside of home, the only way to gain wealth would be through the practice of dowry.


Well, aspirin was invented for a reason. And if women can't have jobs, the husband obviously has some lucrative career.
465 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / the only place ca...
Offline
Posted 3/19/11
I donnt believe in a relatioship where theres ore women than men. that is tottally bad. anyway our president has such a relationship and now our parents pay more tax. which is totally unfair. i think we contributed to the money that bought his seventh wife that fur coat she was wearing when she was refurnishing her house.
838 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 4/25/11
I would like to point out that the majority of marriages in the world are polygynist (one husband, many wives), and hey, those cultures are functional and the people are happy in them.

Monogamy is such a TINY proportion of the world's marital practices.
Posted 4/25/11

Lionna wrote:

I would like to point out that the majority of marriages in the world are polygynist (one husband, many wives), and hey, those cultures are functional and the people are happy in them.

Monogamy is such a TINY proportion of the world's marital practices.
Tell that to the "Lost Boys" from within that society, who can't get marry because of the unequal displacement of spouses. Not to mention the long term risk of overpopulation through polygamy.
838 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 4/26/11

DomFortress wrote:


Lionna wrote:

I would like to point out that the majority of marriages in the world are polygynist (one husband, many wives), and hey, those cultures are functional and the people are happy in them.

Monogamy is such a TINY proportion of the world's marital practices.
Tell that to the "Lost Boys" from within that society, who can't get marry because of the unequal displacement of spouses. Not to mention the long term risk of overpopulation through polygamy.


Forgive me, I was speaking in general terms. Surely, there are exceptions.
I don't understand how polygamy would result in overpopulation, though. With a greater number of relatives, that reduces the number of potential mates. Plus, a dude can only fornicate so much.

Honestly, monogamy isn't this special, magical institution that's perfect for everyone. Indeed, there are countless examples of how monogamous relationships can turn sour, even dangerous.

It definitely isn't a standard we should be pressuring the entire planet to conform to, in any case.
Posted 4/26/11 , edited 4/26/11

Lionna wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Lionna wrote:

I would like to point out that the majority of marriages in the world are polygynist (one husband, many wives), and hey, those cultures are functional and the people are happy in them.

Monogamy is such a TINY proportion of the world's marital practices.
Tell that to the "Lost Boys" from within that society, who can't get marry because of the unequal displacement of spouses. Not to mention the long term risk of overpopulation through polygamy.


Forgive me, I was speaking in general terms. Surely, there are exceptions.
I don't understand how polygamy would result in overpopulation, though. With a greater number of relatives, that reduces the number of potential mates. Plus, a dude can only fornicate so much.

Honestly, monogamy isn't this special, magical institution that's perfect for everyone. Indeed, there are countless examples of how monogamous relationships can turn sour, even dangerous.

It definitely isn't a standard we should be pressuring the entire planet to conform to, in any case.
Tell that to those who practice polygamy, and ended up with double-digit offspring within a family unit because of it. When the majority of polygamy society did so due to religious obligation, which often come with the general assumption of mass reproduction. And just like that, your assumption on monogamy is also overgeneralizing beyond realistic.
4582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 4/29/11
I actually watched a video about this today. Except it was a women with 3 husbands(all brothers) in a village in Tibet. It practiced in several areas in Tibet and India, and in some Inuit areas too.

They do it to keep population down, as a woman can only give birth so many times, in order to have enough resources. The men help with the child-rearing and also work out in the fields.

It suits the villagers way of life and even though no-one is forced into these marraiges many choose to do so. Their happy and the woman said it would better if all marrages were like that.

Personally I'd prefer a monogamous relationship.

124 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / East Java, Indonesia
Offline
Posted 5/4/11
I don't really believe in "true love" myself but polygamy seems a little strange to me ;o;'' it's legal and common in my country, especially for girls who are even younger than I am [like they'd -by force- have a 15-yr-old marry someone twice their age or more]. That sort of stuff is wrong in my eyes. it sort of represents over-religiousness to me...
1293 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Kumamoto, Japan
Offline
Posted 6/11/11
I'm not for or against it. It's your choice if you want to have more than wife and if there are women out there who welcome it and are okay with it then--well--all party's are okay with it so there is really no harm no foul. I would like to see a situation, however, where there is a woman with multiple husbands. Why is it always wives besides the fact that's just how it's been for... well, forever.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about having boatloads of children. I mean, at some point it begins to turn into more of a situation where you cannot spread yourself out between all your children to be a decent parent to them. If you're practicing polygamy then your beliefs shouldn't be that of "can't use protection because of God something or another" (unless you're Mormon--Mormons do that right?).

Anyways, it's a choice of lifestyle. It doesn't necessarily hurt anybody.

4377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Dream Land
Offline
Posted 7/19/11
No woman on earth could possibly enjoy this.
31656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Construction land!
Offline
Posted 7/19/11
I'm personally more a fan of monogamy; when I find a guy, I want to know that he is mine, and I am his. But, I don't think that it should be the law. If all partners are in agreement to a polygamous relationship, I do think it should be allowed. Communication is a key. This said, though, it does not mean that A can be with C without B's knowledge; and B would have the right to a divorce should (s)he've wanted a monogamous relationship. But if A, B, C, D, and E are all cool with it, go for it, and their unions should be able to be recognized.
56909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / Right behind you.
Offline
Posted 7/20/11

DomFortress Tell that to those who practice polygamy, and ended up with double-digit offspring within a family unit because of it. When the majority of polygamy society did so due to religious obligation, which often come with the general assumption of mass reproduction. And just like that, your assumption on monogamy is also overgeneralizing beyond realistic.


Just like the majority of societies practice polygamy due to religious influence, the same could be said about monogamy. Monogamy has always been enforced by religion a regional sense of morality. As for an increase of population, there are a lot of factors dictating how often people want to have kids other than whether they are polygamous or not. Anthropologically speaking people will only have large families out of necessity in order to increase their chances of survival and how much work needs to be done in order to survive. And in more recent years the availability and religious views on forms of contraception. Whether a family unit is monogamous or polygamous plays a much smaller part on population than a lot of other factors. Even if that were not the case, the number of women receptive women is still not changing between monogamous and polygamous societies. If anything you could make the argument that it is more likely they have less children, since in polygamous relationships its all about equality between the wives. If the male of the family unit has a child with one mother, he would be expected to conceive a child with all the other ones as well. So having one child could turn into having to have many children.

Assuming there is roughly a 50/50 split of males and females in a population. so you have 15 males and 15 women in a population. If you have 3 families each containing 5 women and each woman has had 3 kids, yes you have 1 family unit that 15 children. That also means that 4 other men will not reproduce with these women per family unit unless they are adulterous, which we will assume they are not for simplicity. That means that eventhough there are 45 children in 3 family units, 30 will go to maintaning the current population and 15 will be considered towards and increase in population.

If you take the same number of people in a monogamous you would have instead of having 3 males that reproduce and 12 that dont, you would have 15 males that reproduce and 0 that do not. you would have 15 family units composed of 5 people instead of having 3 family units composed of 15 children and 6 parents each with 4 non alpha males that will not reproduce. The numbers are still the same either way. In either scenario you will have an increase of population by the same amount due to the fact that not all males would grow to be successful and reproduce.

Also biologically speaking most of the animals that have been thought to be strictly monogamous have been proven to not be monogamous as previously thought. Through DNA testing it has been revealed that most birds do share a nest, but not all the eggs in the nest belong to both members of the couple. The male flies around during the night to other nests, and the female is receptive to other males. So while they are a couple in a nest and share the care of the eggs, they are not monogamous.

Other than a culturally established sense of morality, there really isnt that much of a difference with either practice.
Posted 7/20/11

quikbeam wrote:


DomFortress Tell that to those who practice polygamy, and ended up with double-digit offspring within a family unit because of it. When the majority of polygamy society did so due to religious obligation, which often come with the general assumption of mass reproduction. And just like that, your assumption on monogamy is also overgeneralizing beyond realistic.


Just like the majority of societies practice polygamy due to religious influence, the same could be said about monogamy. Monogamy has always been enforced by religion a regional sense of morality. As for an increase of population, there are a lot of factors dictating how often people want to have kids other than whether they are polygamous or not. Anthropologically speaking people will only have large families out of necessity in order to increase their chances of survival and how much work needs to be done in order to survive. And in more recent years the availability and religious views on forms of contraception. Whether a family unit is monogamous or polygamous plays a much smaller part on population than a lot of other factors. Even if that were not the case, the number of women receptive women is still not changing between monogamous and polygamous societies. If anything you could make the argument that it is more likely they have less children, since in polygamous relationships its all about equality between the wives. If the male of the family unit has a child with one mother, he would be expected to conceive a child with all the other ones as well. So having one child could turn into having to have many children.

Assuming there is roughly a 50/50 split of males and females in a population. so you have 15 males and 15 women in a population.
If you have 3 families each containing 5 women and each woman has had 3 kids, yes you have 1 family unit that 15 children. That also means that 4 other men will not reproduce with these women per family unit unless they are adulterous, which we will assume they are not for simplicity. That means that eventhough there are 45 children in 3 family units, 30 will go to maintaning the current population and 15 will be considered towards and increase in population.

If you take the same number of people in a monogamous you would have instead of having 3 males that reproduce and 12 that dont, you would have 15 males that reproduce and 0 that do not. you would have 15 family units composed of 5 people instead of having 3 family units composed of 15 children and 6 parents each with 4 non alpha males that will not reproduce. The numbers are still the same either way. In either scenario you will have an increase of population by the same amount due to the fact that not all males would grow to be successful and reproduce.

Also biologically speaking most of the animals that have been thought to be strictly monogamous have been proven to not be monogamous as previously thought. Through DNA testing it has been revealed that most birds do share a nest, but not all the eggs in the nest belong to both members of the couple. The male flies around during the night to other nests, and the female is receptive to other males. So while they are a couple in a nest and share the care of the eggs, they are not monogamous.

Other than a culturally established sense of morality, there really isnt that much of a difference with either practice.
Don't make excuses that you can't prove, when here's one anthropologist proving that monogamy is in our biology, regardless of cultural bias.

But anyway, not only does this person take on special meaning, you focus your attention on them. You aggrandize them. But you have intense energy. As one Polynesian said, he said, "I felt like jumping in the sky." You're up all night. You're walking till dawn. You feel intense elation when things are going well, mood swings into horrible despair when things are going poorly. Real dependence on this person. As one businessman in New York said to me, he said, "Anything she liked, I liked." Simple. Romantic love is very simple.

You become extremely sexually possessive. You know, if you're just sleeping with somebody casually, you don't really care if they're sleeping with somebody else. But the moment you fall in love, you become extremely sexually possessive of them. I think that that is a Darwinian -- there's a Darwinian purpose to this. The whole point of this is to pull two people together strongly enough to begin to rear babies as a team.

But the main characteristics of romantic love are craving: an intense craving to be with a particular person, not just sexually, but emotionally. You'd much rather -- it would be nice to go to bed with them, but you want them to call you on the telephone, to invite you out, et cetera. To tell you that they love you. The other main characteristic is motivation. The motor in your brain begins to crank, and you want this person.

And last but not least, it is an obsession. When I put these people in the machine, before I put them in the MRI machine, I would ask them all kinds of questions. But my most important question was always the same. It was: "What percentage of the day and night do you think about this person?" And indeed, they would say, "All day. All night. I can never stop thinking about him or her."

And then, the very last question I would ask them -- I would always have to work myself up to this question, because I am not a psychologist. I don't work with people in any kind of traumatic situation. And my final question was always the same. I would say, "Would you die for him or her?" And, indeed, these people would say "Yes!," as if I had asked them to pass the salt. I was just staggered by it.

So we scanned their brains, looking at a photograph of their sweetheart and looking at a neutral photograph, with a distraction task in between. So we could find -- look at the same brain when it was in that heightened state and when it was in a resting state. And we found activity in a lot of brain regions. In fact, one of the most important was a brain region that becomes active when you feel the rush of cocaine. And indeed, that's exactly what happens.

I began to realize that romantic love is not an emotion. In fact, I had always thought it was a series of emotions, from very high to very low. But actually, it's a drive. It comes from the motor of the mind, the wanting part of the mind, the craving part of the mind. The kind of mind -- part of the mind -- when you're reaching for that piece of chocolate, when you want to win that promotion at work. The motor of the brain. It's a drive.

And in fact, I think it's more powerful than the sex drive. You know, if you ask somebody to go to bed with you, and they say, "No thank you," you certainly don't kill yourself or slip into a clinical depression. But certainly, around the world, people who are rejected in love will kill for it. People live for love. They kill for love. They die for love. They have songs, poems, novels, sculptures, paintings, myths, legends. In over 175 societies, people have left their evidence of this powerful brain system. I have come to think it's one of the most powerful brain systems on earth for both great joy and great sorrow.

And I've also come to think that it's one of three, basically different brain systems that evolved from mating and reproduction. One is the sex drive: the craving for sexual gratification. W.H. Auden called it an "intolerable neural itch," and indeed, that's what it is. It keeps bothering you a little bit, like being hungry. The second of these three brain systems is romantic love: that elation, obsession of early love. And the third brain system is attachment: that sense of calm and security you can feel for a long-term partner.

And I think that the sex drive evolved to get you out there, looking for a whole range of partners. You know, you can feel it when you're just driving along in your car. It can be focused on nobody. I think romantic love evolved to enable you to focus your mating energy on just one individual at a time, thereby conserving mating time and energy. And I think that attachment, the third brain system, evolved to enable you to tolerate this human being, at least long enough to raise a child together as a team.(citation)
So as you can see for yourself, not only that real romantic love has more genuine altruism, compassion, and tolerance, it's also reflects how evolution economizes. Also, keep the subject within human specie will ya? We're not talking about bird brains here.

Finally, your hypothesized polygamist model isn't reflecting the reality, thus your "security mirage" is faulty at best. Just like those other polygamous families without real demography data to backup their claims.

In the study of Mormon families, published in the US journal Evolution and Human Behaviour, the researchers surveyed birth, marriage and death records from the Utah population database, which covers nearly 186,000 adults and 630,000 children who lived or died between 1830 and 1894.

It was during this period that polygamy was slowly being phased out under pressure from state legislators. The results were clear: the more women partnered with a man, the fewer children each of those women had. Exactly why is not clear. Like the Soay rams, men may simply not have had the stamina. Wade says: "It could be owing to competition between women within a plural marriage for shared resources, or it could be owing to other unknown factors."

Neither was polygamy a great deal for males. For every man who had multiple wives, there were many who had none. "For every male that has three mates, there must be two who have none," said Wade. "If a male has even more mates, then the disparity among male reproductive haves and have-nots can become quite high."

The failure of the Utah polygamy experiment should therefore not be seen as that surprising.(citation)
Population study isn't just about what if's, you need to come up with logical explanation about what's happening in real life.
196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / here
Offline
Posted 7/21/11
definitely not for me
First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.