Whats wrong with having five wives

[lerapt78]

But I think monogamy is arguably “unnatural” to male Homo sapiens. I believe culture and indoctrination pressures males into monogamous relationships. The institution of marriage forces them to be responsible to the women they create children with. I suspect marriage has it’s origins in a pre-welfare state society - and was created by men and women that wanted to force a responsibility on young males that might impregnate their daughters.

I agree that monogamy is “unnatural” to many male homo sapiens, and that culture drills this concept into them. However I also believe that it is unnatural to many female homo sapiens, and that culture not only pressures them into this (at a much higher rate, I think anyone would agree), but in fact enforces it upon them. This is to pressure women away from begetting children from other men and convincing/manipulating their husbands into thinking they are theirs and subsequently providing for them. I think one only has to look at societal convention and the power of stigma to see the reasoning behind this.

Consider this analogy: A couple has two children. Child A is a rebellious 16-year old, a wild party animal who is impulsive, hyperactive, vain, pleasure-seeking and likes attention. She disobeys authority, caves easily to peer pressure, often sneaks out of the house at night, drinks and smokes and performs poorly in school.

Child B on the other hand, is an obedient 17-year old and follows the rules. She is shy, unconcerned with make-up, has a very mature outlook in life, prefers “staying in “ to going out, and gets straight “A”s.

Over which child do you think the parents would hover over and place greater restrictions – the one who keeps to herself and is more likely to make responsible choices, or the one who constantly gets in trouble? Obviously, it would make no logical sense whatsoever to be overly strict with Child B while letting Child A run about freely.

And yet, we see this apparent misappropriation of sexual control in patriarchal societies which espouse the fallacy of female monogamy. If women supposedly just want to mate with one man for eternity (by their very nature), then what logical sense would it make to impose all of the sexual restrictions upon them?? If there’s no apparent problem with the desire for more than one partner, why the need to create rules on how they should behave in relation to men? Why place engagement rings on their fingers warning other men to stay away if the women supposedly would never be tempted by others once they find one man to marry? Why come up with derogatory names like “slut”, or “tramp” to vilify them for seeking pleasure with multiple partners, if they are supposedly satisfied with just one? Why make female virginity a prerequisite for marriage if women aren’t naturally tempted to experiment with any men other than their future husbands?

It makes far more sense (at least to me) that once upon a time men recognized the very natural desire of women to be attracted to multiple partners and decided to use social conditioning to instill a sense of shame in them for expressing promiscuous tendencies. By doing so, all responsibility for moral behavior would fall on the shoulders of women alone, and the men would have the double-effect of both ensuring paternity and circumventing the need to fight off male competitors. (In the animal kingdom, this is what the males have to do, since they cannot place restrictions upon the females)

To reinforce the notion that males are simply more likely to be promiscuous (and hence polygamous) than females, and to artificially back that notion with social stigma against the female, is to simply repeat a falsehood in order to justify immoral behavior in men while enforcing moral behavior in women. It is/was a control tactic – and a very effective one! – but it was simply not a reflection of the true sexual nature of women.

I just want to say that i think your analysis of women is spot on. I see this kind of behavior even in Christian communities. The alpha and loser male concepts are clearly present in the minds of human females.

And hence, the polyandrous nature of women is exemplified in this very notion of “alpha” vs “beta”. The “alpha” male is not defined only by his wealth, which is in fact often absent from his persona. An alpha male can be identified by other characteristics, such as his size, physical strength, popularity amongst his peer group, aura of danger and/or recklessness, risk-taking tendencies, bravery, and confidence. A tattooed biker could own nothing more than the Harley Davidson he’s riding, but many women will be attracted to him. Likewise, Special Forces soldiers are seen as the “Alpha Supremes” and yet the government doesn’t pay them exorbitant salaries. Many women will fantasize or lust after these types of men regardless of what can be provided for them, financially or emotionally, and while their heads may steer them toward marriage with a wealthy or easy-going “beta”, their hormones (ie; polyandrous inclinations) may tempt them to have relations with an “alpha” on the side (or in marriage, should it ever become socially acceptable). Many men ask why women go for the “bad boy”, when in fact the reason is obvious once one accepts that women do not always correlate sex with love, as it is widely assumed.

 

[Trishie]

My personal opinion - from life experience and observation - is that most (not all) women would prefer to share a rich, powerful, and handsome man with several women than be the one and only of a low-income or middle-income plumber. I don’t care how “nice” of a guy he is.

Bear in mind between the two sexes females are by far the greatest discriminators. As a rule of thumb males are not very discriminating. Just about any woman - obese to anorexic - can walk up to a guy and offer particular things with her mouth to him, and he’ll readily accept. Most women if a guy approached them that way would be totally put off - some might even slap the guy. Unless she recognizes him as a rock star, billionaire, president of a nation etc.

Absolutely not, no rock star, billionaire, president would appeal in this manner. And a lady does not slap a man’s face. She walks away.

How insulting to women these assertion are! Also insulting to suggest that most women prefer a rich, powerful and handsome man to share with other women rather than one good husband!

Any woman I know, and I know a lot of good women, prefer good caring men who don’t have to be rich or handsome, but decent good men. This judgement of women as so very superficial and stupid is very insulting, and as you confess, opinion.

 

[lerapt78]

Absolutely not, no rock star, billionaire, president would appeal in this manner. And a lady does not slap a man’s face. She walks away.

How insulting to women these assertion are! Also insulting to suggest that most women prefer a rich, powerful and handsome man to share with other women rather than one good husband!

Any woman I know, and I know a lot of good women, prefer good caring men who don’t have to be rich or handsome, but decent good men. This judgement of women as so very superficial and stupid is very insulting, and as you confess, opinion.

I agree. I think what we see with this attitude (not directed toward the poster in particular, because this is a very common complaint) is that often a man will make this observation only in relation to which types of women he desires.

The type of women who get rock stars, billionaires, and presidents all have one thing in common: they are usually extremely beautiful. Since most men, regardless of their social positions in life, will regard beautiful women with the utmost desire, they will naturally focus their comparative observations solely on these women and the men that attract them. It’s kind of a bit of “tunnel vision” - they are so focused on the most beautiful of women (and comparing themselves to the men that are getting them), that they may (unintentionally, perhaps) neglect to see all of the “plain Jane’s” who are happily married to electricians, teachers, delivery men, and post office clerks. The fact is, most men of modest means find women to marry.

The comparison would be for an average-looking woman to focus her attraction to the Brad Pitts of the world and cynically come to the conclusion that *all *men only want someone who looks like Angelina Jolie.

I also think that if women *really *wanted to share husbands, they would have petitioned for the allowance of polygyny (with little resistance from men.) while they were picketing for voting rights.

 

[Trishie]

lerapt thank you for your wise thoughts

One reservation:
lerapt, I think you’ll find there are plenty of good women who are also beautiful, yet not superficial and silly, and who desire and welcome one good husband who is not-rich-and-famous and-drop-dead-gorgeous.

 

[IanGE]

When I see an expensive sports car there’s usually a blonde bimbo driving it. Or an OLD man!

 

[Lost_Sheep]

How insulting to women these assertion are! Also insulting to suggest that most women prefer a rich, powerful and handsome man to share with other women rather than one good husband!

Any woman I know, and I know a lot of good women, prefer good caring men who don’t have to be rich or handsome, but decent good men. This judgement of women as so very superficial and stupid is very insulting, and as you confess, opinion.

Not so fast.

reuters.com/article/2007/09/04/us-dating-study-idUSN0323405520070904

Also, Dr. Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University and author of best-seller “You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation” and several other books on male-female relationships says that when it comes to the human mating rituals, there are two universal and absolute truths: when a man chooses a mate he is looking for beauty; and when a woman chooses a mate she is looking for security. And that is always true; whether it is our more sophisticated western societies or the most primitive tribal cultures, men look for beauty and women look for security.

Now, while it is universally true that while men always look for beauty and women always look for security, there are no hard and fast definitions as to exactly what beauty and security are. In our western culture, we tend to equate beauty with physical appearance and security with financial wealth. However, in a more primitive tribal society, security may be equated with physical strength; a man who can protect his family or is an effective hunter or gatherer who can ensure the family is well-cared for. And maybe he sees beauty in a woman who can provide him with many children in a culture where a big family means a higher social status among the tribe.

And then you can get into more abstract terms such as “inner beauty” (i.e., “she’s not that petty but she has a great personality”) and “emotional security” (“he makes me feel special.”) But no matter how you slice it, in the end men look for beauty and women look for security.

Some more good stuff by Deborah Tannen:

raysweb.net/poems/articles/tannen.html

 

[Trishie]

Some thoughts in response.

Security to any sensible person isn’t necessarily in the rich or handsome or famous who may be seen as more likely to be less unselfish, more self-centred and therefore less desirable prospects of security. Observation and the many breakups and betrayals of the ‘rich, famous, and beautiful’ that can indicate that security is not guaranteed by such persons.

It is also the case that some of us aren’t overwhelmed by the research of those who claim to be experts. In the lives of most ordinary battlers, academic research can be taken too seriously, or with a grain of salt.

I also find such assertions as those made unconvincing as in a huge family, my Dad had over 60 blood descendents, children grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and we all marry people we like and respect and love for their goodness and kindness, and they have varying degrees of what can be called beauty, and various/many different occupations, and we accept what is about these dear persons, not how rich, beautiful, handsome, they are, but how kind and loving, that we like them and love them. My husband hasn’t been able to work for 20 years. I love him.
We lost our home. I find it hard not having a garden, but I still choose my husband.
He will probably lose most use of his hands soon, but he’s honest and good, and we make each other laugh

My sister’s husband is now a quadriplegic. He’s home again after months in hospital. My sister loves him, his children do, we all do. He can’t earn either.

People have commented many times that they love my smile, they don’t care I don’t have a perfect face, nor do I care if those I love have perfect features or are rich. I have eight siblings and we look good, not perfect, we and our spouses don’t have perfect features or jobs that provide many things desirable in society, but to us they’re beautiful and what they can provide, what we can provide and share is enough whether little or a lot.

In real life, if some may choose for reasons of greed or power or for trophy reasons many people do choose people for the simple reason that they like them and love them…so research is as research does…and it can be deceptive, and perhaps without consulting the multitude of ordinary good people but select groups…so it doesn’t convince some of us, even if it appears erudite and convincing. Life tells us otherwise.

Not everyone is selfish. I have one sister and her husband who adopted two handicapped children as their own, even though they had five healthy children…and raised all lovingly. And a brother and his wife who had three healthy children, and also adopted 3 handicapped children, to provide homes for unwanted babes.

So to convince me that only self-interest drives the choice of man for woman and woman for man will never happen. I have more faith in people than that…that’s my two cents worth.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You guys know some different women than I do. I don’t know a lot of women who would want to share a husband, even if they’re rich. I DO know women who would be willing to lose money to be with the one man they love. Different social spheres, I guess?

 

[TimeEntrance]

You guys know some different women than I do. I don’t know a lot of women who would want to share a husband, even if they’re rich. I DO know women who would be willing to lose money to be with the one man they love. Different social spheres, I guess?

Maybe. I have a very cynical view of people and the world too. Most of my life has been steeped in urban, inner-city culture and ways too. Except for my brief stint in the U.S. Marine Corps.

From my observation though - looking outside the inner-cities - from best I can tell, usually women are more discriminating while still in their more youthful reproductive years. If single and unmarried into their late 30’s or early 40’s, they become less discriminating. Or in modern parlance they drop some “must have’s” from their “list” of what kind of man they are willing to date or even marry and love.

I have no delusions I could attract or marry a liberal Hollywood actress that’s a Democrat for instance. She socializes in a league far above my own and can afford to be extremely discriminating. While there are exceptions, in general rich women don’t marry impoverished men.

 

[TimeEntrance]

My ex-husband was shocked that as a doctor I would date/marry him b/c he only had a high school education and is a cop.

That’s an interesting couple. He shoots them and you fix them. LOL.

Your past situation reminds a little of a young, uneducated, white male I was briefly an acquaintance of. He was a recovering drug addict and just beginning enrollment in college education. He was engaged to dark skinned mestiza from Spanish speaking Latin America and she either a medical doctor or medical student. I can’t remember which.

I’m not implying anything about your looks - I don’t know you - but I’m only speaking of this particular couple. She was not “ugly” but not one a person might regard as blessed in looks. In my mind she was/is a little “below average” in female looks.

Anyways… I think the typical person might assume she was engaged to this guy so she could become a U.S. citizen. But my impression was different. I got the impression a lot of men might haven’t paid the typical attention to her they did better looking women. And that he was marrying her for the economic and life stability it would bring him.

My impression could have been totally off base of course. But it’s the impression I got.

I think they were around the same age range too.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Do Catholics have a philosophical argument for why having more than one wife is wrong.

I am not interested in statements of faith.

God is not arbitrary: there is a rational basis behind all moral commandments.

I believe the reason deals with mankind’s inability to love multiple things or persons equally. In marriage both are called to give all of themselves to each other and this would be impossible if there were more than two people in the relationship since you could not say all of yourself is dedicated to the other. In polygamy if the subject of love was addressed the person would in reality have to say I love you 80% and the other 20%. Yet no self-respecting woman (or man if the situation was reversed) would accept 80% as an acceptable answer simply because the amount of love they deserve as human beings is 100%.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I agree. I think what we see with this attitude (not directed toward the poster in particular, because this is a very common complaint) is that often a man will make this observation only in relation to which types of women he desires.

LOL.

Without responding directly to each individual that made a response to my post - hope no one thinks I’m ignoring them or that I dislike them - I was surprised by the number of people that agreed with LOL. Usually, I get people of both sexes responding with anger at me if I bring up sexual selection.

I read a few good points of disagreements with me - a few, not many. I can especially appreciate the points made about marriage benefiting males in that it better allows them the ability to have confidence that the offspring they are rearing and investing in are their own. A kind of territorial thing.

But I think you (and Trishie) are assuming too much in my motives or views about sexual selection as it relates to females specifically.
**
#1.** Let me say I think sexual selection can help in informing us about the selective behaviors of humans when it comes to mating. Help is probably the key word. I’m not so sure this area of science is without it’s faulty hypotheses or limitations. Individual humans can be pretty complex given the broad or diverse psychological types among humans. We are not purely instinctual animals.

#2. All readers or audiences interpret what they read or hear through the filters of their own life experiences and backgrounds.Ergo, the reason politicians and public speakers tailor their speeches to the audiences they speak before.

And I think people interpret what I’ve written in this thread through the filters of their own personal history and identity.

#3. As movies like Easy A evidence I don’t think a good argument could be made that social-sexual changes among females have fallen behind in “progress” than that of males. In large part most Western women today do to the Sexual Revolution would had been considered in dress and sexual behavior to have been “whores” many decades ago. Today they are regarded as not only morally correct but excellent girlfriend and wife material.

Both men and women in the West still demand males adhere to the sexual and social standards of the 1950’s for themselves. To be “a man” comes with a slew of qualitative factors that much be reached and maintained. It is not merely biological maturation. To be “a woman” is simply biological. A woman does not even have to cook (a “man” still has to work).

Even porno stars with incurable STD’s like Bella Donna have no problem in obtaining husbands.

#4. Yes, I concur males are attracted to and typically pursue the more attractive of females in society or within a specific group. But I don’t see how that contradicts about female motivation in sexual selection. Members of both sexes seek self interests and both are often what we would term “shallow.”

It might be worth noting that the average Joe usually ends up dating or marrying the average Jane.

Typically alpha males end up with the more beautiful or sexually alluring females. We might in this case term these females alpha females.

Nonetheless, in my view, eventually people tend to settle for what is the best person in their perception, that they think they can get.

Say if woman A is the most attractive. Woman B next most attractive. Woman C next most. And women D and E respectively so on.

A man might pursue woman B even if he is afraid or not confident he could get woman A. If rejected by woman B he will settle for woman C before he will D or E.

Women reason the same. And to justify our social hierarchy in life as well as our choices and place within the social pyramid we come up with a lot of baloney we like to suggest is “objective” truth about the unsuitability or lack or worth in person’s X, Y, and Z.

#5. I do not purchase heavily into the conception of females as passive victims of life in world ruled by their domineering and all powerful brothers, fathers, and uncles. Rich and powerful women have always existed beside rich and powerful men. In fact, people in that socio-economic type historically married one another.

The aristocratic slave owning South is but one example. Quite a number of plantations were owned and run by women. The black male slaves had little wealth or power compared to these women. Actually, even the black enslaved women headed the slave households (matriarchies). Being ethnically Black-American I’m familiar with matriarchies.

#6. It’s not just the past with some restriction to resources for women, it is present day United States where women can become medical doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, or scientists and also automatically qualify for state funded care if they are single mothers and their income falls below a certain level.

I remember reading in either Ebony Magazine or Essence Magazine several young ethnic Black-American women being interviewed in article. I think all were college educated and young white collar professionals. Every single one of them stated they would rather share a rich black man with several other women than be the one and only wife of a blue collar plumber.

#7. From the statistical data itself in the area of sexual selection, one can only pretty much infer that - in analogous terms of distribution of wealth, but in this case mates of the opposite sex - females are Switzerland and males are Brazil.

To me, all polemics about the suffering single woman compared to the male that can easily get just about any woman he wants, is akin to preaching the sun revolves around the earth. The math simply does not support either conclusions.

 

[pismopal]

Having five wives?..that is the punishment for bigamy!

 

[IanGE]

When I was in the RAF nearly sixty years ago we had a dictum: never marry a beautiful woman. She’ll be so wrapped up in herself she wont give a toss for you. I guess the same goes for “beautiful” men! My elders (we used to heed them back then!) also said, any girl with beautifully manicured long nails is another no-no: no chance of her washing dirty nappies!. On the other hand an ugly woman will almost certainly be bitter and cantakerous. Good-looking Janes with whom you could enjoy a long, chatty, witty date were Number ones to look for.
The Arabs say “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and fall for big, fat women. Stick women will have a hard time producing babies and big women will be hard workers, too.
The Hindu Vedas (the Kama Sutra, actually) issue a warning : never marry a woman with an unprounceable or inauspicious name. I had to think about that one and realised that, if requesting a cup of tea, one’s thirst would have gone while you were getting your gums round her name!

 

[Sair]

I am one of these women. I am not impressed with power, money or good looks/physical prowess. I would be attracted to a man of God, with knowledge (not necessarily high IQ), sense of humor, gentleness, caring and thoughtfulness. I am very impressed by knowledge regardless of the topic. My ex-husband was shocked that as a doctor I would date/marry him b/c he only had a high school education and is a cop. I wonder if b/c I couldn’t have children the ingrained notion of finding a good DNA donor didn’t come into play.

I think a police officer makes for a very attractive mate, if you’re looking for someone who’s dependable, tough, and committed to doing good for the community (okay, that’s an ideal - not all cops are like that, but the efficacy of the police force certainly relies upon these qualities). And, frankly, intelligence is such a nebulous concept - people can be very well educated and knowledgeable in an academic sense, but completely clueless when it comes to interpersonal relationships. It really depends upon what you want and need from a partner in life.

Attraction is such an individual thing, and I certainly do think it’s possible to be attracted to different people at different times. I have never felt particularly enamoured of “conventionally” attractive masculine types, but I must admit I do still feel that at least a minimal level of intelligence, and a sense of humour are essential for me to get along with anyone, let alone a man to whom I feel attracted. We’ve all heard of the stereotype of the man who is buff and handsome, but dumb as a box of hammers - I can assure you, he exists. At the end of the day, if you feel a connection with someone, you feel a connection - they obviously supply some need in your emotional/psychological life. Sometimes it doesn’t do to overanalyse this.

True, but it should be just as heinous for both. I’ve often wondered why the other woman in cases of male infidelity is often vilified more than the man who broke his vows. The wife blames the other woman more than the husband. When the woman cheats the husband wants to go after both the wife and other man. The other man b/c he was trying to steal his wife and the wife b/c she was looking for something he was lacking.

Well, it does take two to tango - but it’s certainly true, you’re right, that women have been vilified as “temptresses” and consigned to the role of villain in extramarital affairs far more often than they have been in any way primarily responsible for the occurrence. Historically speaking, women were seen more as a source of temptation for men than as actual human beings with whom men might forge meaningful relationships. As for the male side of the equation, a man who has illicit relations with another man’s wife is, as far as men were historically (and still are, in some cultures) concerned, essentially “stealing” the husband’s property. An interesting example of convergent reactions stemming from different sources…

 

[Sair]

I believe the reason deals with mankind’s inability to love multiple things or persons equally. In marriage both are called to give all of themselves to each other and this would be impossible if there were more than two people in the relationship since you could not say all of yourself is dedicated to the other. In polygamy if the subject of love was addressed the person would in reality have to say I love you 80% and the other 20%. Yet no self-respecting woman (or man if the situation was reversed) would accept 80% as an acceptable answer simply because the amount of love they deserve as human beings is 100%.

How does this work when a couple has more than one child? Is the popular underlying suspicion, that there is one child who is preferred by either or both parents, then true?

I personally think it’s insane to expect that one person, one partner, can fulfil all of your emotional, intellectual, practical, etc needs in life - the prevalence of adultery and divorce would seem to bear out this supposition, yet I wonder why sexual infidelity, above all other kinds, is so broadly assumed to be the deal-breaker when there are far more destructive ways of betraying a relationship with an intimate partner.

And furthermore, it’s assumed, pretty much as a matter of course, that people can love more than one friend, more than one child, more than one pet, more than one parent and so on with equal intensity, though perhaps for different reasons. Yet add a sexual relationship into the mix and somehow this wisdom gets swept under the rug - one partner, and one only, is expected to be the focus of your entire emotional commitment. Honestly, I think that’s crazy.

 

[starsmurf]

Sorry to have to point this out, but by assuming that all women want just the same things, you are perpetuating the inherent sexism that suffuses Western culture - the belief that, as Joan Smith (UK journalist and human rights activist) put it, all women are different from men but the same as each other.

I do not in any way assume that all women want the same things. I find the accusation of sexism really offensive, espcially as I am female. I got the facts from reading a book about women and Islam, which was well researched and used independant studies with large numbers of participants. There were several studies and interviews done with women in polygynous marriages. They all spoke of the difficulties of sharing their husband, the conflicts with other wives, being subservient to the oldest or most favoured wife etc etc. There was also the terror of each new wife, hoping to quickly concieve a son, otherwise she would be rejected, espcially sad as some of the youngest wives were too young to concieve. The only “support” for polygyny was for practical reasons, like the housework being too much for one woman. I would suggest that telling the husband to get off his backside was a better way of overcoming that problem, rather than his marrying a girl or young woman.

I also read about Mormon-offshoot faiths which still practice polygyny. The study was about mental health in women in such relationships. It found that the rates of depression, eating disorders and other mental health issues were sky-high but unreported due to lack of understanding of, or sympathy for, mental illness. A wife who was depressed would be told to “work harder” by her bishop or doctor, as a woman who had a clean house, a year’s supply of food and all the other signs of being a good wife, would be happy and content. When asked about their feelings, the women spoke of how they hated sharing a bed, how they found it difficult having to be intimate in front of the other women, especially when they’d had children and their body changed. Many women find it hard to be intimate with just their husband, to have to do so in front of five other women, who you may be in conflict with, would be very damaging to the psyche. Women can be very b*itchy, especially when they are jealous or dismissive of another woman. To have to live with that, having no escape to the extent of sharing a bed, must be hell on earth.

In the first post, I mentioned that there are consensual multi-amorus relationships in Western countries. However, the numbers are small and it seems to be rare where all involved are fully happy with the relationship. Some may get jealous of the other partner(s) or feel that they have to accept the situation to keep the person they love. There was a programme shown on BBC2 here a few years ago, called “The Convent”, where four women spent six weeks living with a community of Poor Clare nuns. One of the women was married but also had a live-in lover (who changed every six months or so). Part of the way through the stay, she admitted that she might have forced her husband to accept her having lovers and that he may not be fully happy with the situation, simply acting out of desperation to stay with the woman he loved.

Another programme about multi-amorous relationships featured several sad relationships, including a married man with two live-in lovers. It revealed that one of the lovers was extremely jealous of the other lover and envious of the wife. She said that she would rather be in a monogamous relationship but was desperate to be with this man. Her statement that she wouldn’t let herself get into such a situation ever again was very sad, she knew that this wasn’t something she could accept long-term. I also found it strange that this family were keeping the relationships secret from the children of the husband and wife. The two lovers didn’t even have their own bedrooms, having to get up at 5am and go sleep on couches. When one of the children said that the woman who got jealous slept “in the cupboard, she goes and curls up in her blanket and cries in there”, the parents found that funny. I found it heartbreaking, that this unhappy woman had nowhere else that she could get some privacy.

Different people benefit from different relationship structures. It’s tragically obvious that the supposed ideal of heterosexual monogamy just doesn’t work - and will never work - for all people. Until mainstream society accepts and embraces this fact, the moral constructs applied to intimate relationships will always be inherently discriminatory.

I said nothing about homo- or bixexual relationships, since that wasn’t part of the original question. I would say that mainstream society is accepting such relationships, as my own country (Scotland) will almost certainly legalise gay marriage next year. My little sister is lesbian, she said that out of my family (and I’m the only religious one, never mind Catholic) I’ve been the most supportive and accepting. So please don’t judge me on that either.

Why should mainstream society “embrace” polygamous or multi-amorous relationships? Human nature is naturally against non-monogamous relationships, we evolved to be in relationships with one mate, as a way of protecting the offspring. It was necessary to have both parents of a human child there as the child grew up, as that gave the child the best chance of survival. That’s where jealousy comes from. For mainstream society to start encouraging people to go into relationships that are against our evolution, would have awful consequences. The evidence that such relationships are often harmful to, or exploitative of, at least one of the partners is overwhelming. I do not believe that society should accept, never mind embrace, a harmful relationship, whatever the number, gender or sexuality of the participants.

 

[Sair]

You guys know some different women than I do. I don’t know a lot of women who would want to share a husband, even if they’re rich. I DO know women who would be willing to lose money to be with the one man they love. Different social spheres, I guess?

On the other hand, weathy women who could support more than one husband might be, biologically speaking, at an advantage. As I pointed out earlier, monogamy - at least, female monogamy - serves male reproductive interests, primarily, in being an insurance scheme for paternity certainty. For females, the reproductive interest is in having healthy offspring, and the males who will father healthy offspring are not necessarily the ones who will stick around to raise said babies - they may well be the ones who are busily spreading their seed around multiple females.

 

[Sair]

I do not in any way assume that all women want the same things. I find the accusation of sexism really offensive, espcially as I am female. I got the facts from reading a book about women and Islam, which was well researched and used independant studies with large numbers of participants. There were several studies and interviews done with women in polygynous marriages. They all spoke of the difficulties of sharing their husband, the conflicts with other wives, being subservient to the oldest or most favoured wife etc etc. There was also the terror of each new wife, hoping to quickly concieve a son, otherwise she would be rejected, espcially sad as some of the youngest wives were too young to concieve. The only “support” for polygyny was for practical reasons, like the housework being too much for one woman. I would suggest that telling the husband to get off his backside was a better way of overcoming that problem, rather than his marrying a girl or young woman.

My apologies for my misinterpretation - but quite obviously, the culture in which many Muslim women enter polygamous relationships is poisoned anyway, by the assumption that women are inherently of less value than men (an attitude that prevailed in the West prior to feminism, let’s not forget). In such a situation, women are not permitted to exercise any individuality, but must conform to the expectation of the ruling class - in this case, men, who are themselves forced to conform to the dictates of their theocratic rulers, whether they fully agree or not.

This is clearly not a yardstick by which to measure any and all polygamous/polygynous/polyandrous/polyamorous relationships.

 

[starsmurf]

How does this work when a couple has more than one child? Is the popular underlying suspicion, that there is one child who is preferred by either or both parents, then true?

I personally think it’s insane to expect that one person, one partner, can fulfil all of your emotional, intellectual, practical, etc needs in life - the prevalence of adultery and divorce would seem to bear out this supposition, yet I wonder why sexual infidelity, above all other kinds, is so broadly assumed to be the deal-breaker when there are far more destructive ways of betraying a relationship with an intimate partner.

And furthermore, it’s assumed, pretty much as a matter of course, that people can love more than one friend, more than one child, more than one pet, more than one parent and so on with equal intensity, though perhaps for different reasons. Yet add a sexual relationship into the mix and somehow this wisdom gets swept under the rug - one partner, and one only, is expected to be the focus of your entire emotional commitment. Honestly, I think that’s crazy.

If you go by the rule that because something happens a lot, it should be accepted, then rape and paedophilia are acceptable. I’m not saying that you in any way support that, simply pointing out that that is where your argument is leading.

As there is a lot of evidence about many parents not loving their children equally and that many children don’t love their parents equally, you can’t really use that argument either. And I’ve been working with a cat charity for too long to believe that many people love their pets equally either.

As I said in my other post, humans evolved to be monogamous, it was the best way of ensuring that offspring lived. Women even evolved permenantly engorged breasts as a way of putting off men, as the only time other primate females have large breasts is when they’re lactating and therefore would not be fertile (sorry guys - you can’t argue that you’re naturally attracted to them, just the opposite).

Infidelity is a deal-breaker because you betrayed that person’s trust. When you are with someone in a relationship, you open up to them so much more than in a friendship or even family relationships. It is like entrusting that person with your soul. If you treat them badly, by being unfaithful, you have treated their very self with contempt. While there are other ways to hurt someone, and I’ve experienced them, infidelity was the worst. It is such a betrayal.

The fact that you expect someone to fulfill all your needs isn’t crazy, it just shows that your view of relationships is skewed. They are not there to fulfill all your needs, they are there for the pair of you to fulfill each other’s needs. If that person doesn’t meet every last need, that doesn’t give you the right to be unfaithful, it just means that you should put aside that need, make it a sacrifice, to the person you love. That doesn’t mean being a doormat, no-one should have to deny all their needs for someone else. Denying some small desire is what love is about, that person becomes more important than your desires… If your partner is unwell, you need to put your sexual desires aside, out of love for that person, because they’re more important. If your partner doesn’t share some sexual desire or fantasy, then you put it aside.

Relationships aren’t about our needs and wants being met, they’re about learning to be unselfish, as that’s what you need to be if you bring children into the world. Just because you don’t want children, doesn’t mean that you have the right to be selfish, even in non-child bearing relationships. The emotions we evolved through relationships that did bear children (obviously or we wouldn’t be here), still apply. That’s not crazy, that’s entirely logical.