DEBATE! why not practice polygyny?

[xxx200]

friends monogamy was a christian invention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny#Christianity

before christianity, Europe was a polygynous nation. roman emperors and wealthy men of Rome used to marry more than one woman.if we give up all religion, why we stick to monogamy which is solely christian contribution?


man is not made to be happy with one woman. that's why he always seeks new woman. the widespread practice of adultery, bigamy, concubine are the evidence of man's nature. if man is so made to be happy with one woman, all the above mentioned offenses will not exist.

in the country where polyandry was practiced, there also men are attracted by other women. this also shows that man is made to be polygynous.

why not be polygynous again?

what do you think?

[anunitu]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

friends monogamy was a christian invention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny#Christianity

before christianity, Europe was a polygynous nation. roman emperors and wealthy men of Rome used to marry more than one woman.if we give up all religion, why we stick to monogamy which is solely christian contribution?


man is not made to be happy with one woman. that's why he always seeks new woman. the widespread practice of adultery, bigamy, concubine are the evidence of man's nature. if man is so made to be happy with one woman, all the above mentioned offenses will not exist.

in the country where polyandry was practiced, there also men are attracted by other women. this also shows that man is made to be polygynous.

why not be polygynous again?

what do you think?

It seems you only mention men having more than one woman,but by your logic,it should be a woman should be able to have more than one husband as well...

[Jembru]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

Why not polyandry?

I have polygymous friends and I see nothing wrong with it. However, I think it is unrealistic to say we are naturally polygymous. This is false. There IS a drive amongs male mammals and birds (a lot of research has been done into the genetics of the offpring of birds previously believed to be monogymous), to spread their seed widely, but there is an equil drive for females to have a partner to herself.

There is a massive reduction in fitness to a female animal when pregnant and nursing. Because of this, her genetic success is increased by having a partner who helps her to care for her young. Monogymy also reduces the cost of mating displays or even fights over mates.

So in nature there is a constant struggle between a female's need for monogymy and a male's need to spread his genes as far as possible. There are some interesting solutions demonstrated by various species, but I won't turn this into a lecture.

Where you see polygymy is usually where there are plenty resourses or in gregarious animals that support one another in raising their young. This is why when you see polygymy in human cultures, it is generally the wealthy who have many partners. Polygymy isn't unnatural, but neither is monogymy.

I choose monogymy because I am a very intense person who gets a lot of pleasure from the closeness I share with my partner (he has a very feminine personality so he mirrors this). This is why, although I am bisexual, I prefered women for many years. I just couldn't experience this amount of intense closeness with a man. That's until now of course!

There is no way that I personally could be as devoted as I am to JP, with more than one partner. I also don't think I could share him, even if I loved the third partner too. Other people can, or maybe don't require this level of closeness, and that's fine too, but it's not for me.

It's personal choice and I don't in any way feel I am missing our or going againt nature. In fact, I KNOW i'm not.

---------- Post added at 12:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 AM ----------

Oh lol, anunito beat me to it, but yeah.. like I said.. why not polyandry?

[anunitu]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

One other thing that comes to mind,back in the days when men were allowed to have many wives,it usually was the case where the women had no choice. Women were considered "Property",and had little say in the matter.

Another point is,it is one thing to "Want" many women,and quite another to actually be able to handle many women. And also back then you had to be able to support all your wives.

[Dez]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

As the descendant of a culture that has practiced polygyny within the past 100 years, I'm rather curious about *why* exactly, the OP is asking the question he is?

Also, tacked onto Jembru's post, while nature often provides a desire for one partner for women, there is also ample evidence of nature providing ways to *upgrade* a partner, getting all the perks of both a smart and a strong male, or keeping a more nurturing male to help with offspring that are not his. It's fairly diverse.

There are also many human cultures(and many human women on the earth now) who feel no need to for exclusivity, and did not set such an importance on proving male parentage.

Men aren't the only ones attracted to multiple others.

[anunitu]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

:angel:Lady,if you can support my "Lavish" lifestyle,I am yours.

And remember I need the very best Generic stuff,none of that really bad generic stuff.

[Ophidia]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

'Mandating' relationships of any kind is just bad religion and/or government.

Legally recognized relationships (i.e., marriages) should cover the gamut of monogamous marriages to small poly relationships (I'd say even large poly relationships, but there should be a limit because otherwise corporations will insist that they are marriages to reap benefits that shouldn't be given to corporations) and be eligible for the legal benefits given to partnerships currently falling under the definition of marriage.

[Dez]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

Hehehe....well, if you mean me, annitu, I'm very flattered.

Currently trying to support my own "lavish" lifestyle, though. Darn economy...

[Caelia]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

Azazel and I discussed this. It isn't for us because we are both very possessive folks. Multiple partners is not something we can do without resentments and possible hostility or worse.

Like others have mentioned, where there were multiple partners it was on the condition all partners can be reasonably supported.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

man is not made to be happy with one woman. that's why he always seeks new woman.

While I have no particular objection to any particular arrangement & would most prefer to see people find what they like, I just want to point out that this is a highly biased statement. Isn't it possible that out of the incredible variety in human preferences, there may be some who are most happy in monogamy?

Beware of absolutes.

[anunitu]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

Yeh Corbin,I was pretty happy with just one wife.

[MaskedOne]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

I have a very small, miserly heart that is unlikely to tolerate making and maintaining multiple commitments as deep as marriage simultaneously. It might work out but don't bet anything you want to keep on it. Others here might manage better.

[Peri_Dot]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

It just sounds like too much work to me.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

Why not?

Because women are batshit crazy. I do good to keep up with the one that I have. Having more than one wife is wishing oneself an early grave.

Sorry ladies.

/dives behind couch

[Jembru]

Re: why not practice polygyny?

Why not?

Because women are batshit crazy. I do good to keep up with the one that I have. Having more than one wife is wishing oneself an early grave.

Sorry ladies.

/dives behind couch

While I disagree with your use of sweeping generalisation here, I can't deny the fact that I AM batshit crazy, so no arguments here!

I am struggling with the OP's suggestion that Christians INVENTED monogomy. Surely all they did was forbid anything else? That's not the same thing. Okay, I admit I didn't read his link though.