[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
If that were the case,then many men would be sharing women too,since there are so many two income families and all…kind of like a time share wife.[/quote]
No, rather the stupid, fat, ugly, and unsuccessful men would not mate. That is the way it should be.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jawara wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Man is not meant to have only one mate.
It is a sad fact of Western Society that polygamy is not the norm.
Though, I believe a man should only have as many women as he can provide for.
I disagree, one wife is enough for me thank you. Is it natural for women to have as many men as they can provide for too?
And me too for that matter…I can handle only one at the moment.
But I am speaking purely from a biological stand point. A man can theoretically impregnate as many women as he can have sex with. It then becomes an economical matter of being able to support them thru their pregnancy and child rearing and an issue of his temperment whether he can deal with them mentally. Part of me thinks it would be easier for him if polygamy were an accepted practice.
We already see examples of this happening whether a man “legally” marries his mate or not. The fact that men willingly “cheat” on their spouse and have children with other partners is proof that it is possible. It also brings home the point about the other two factors mentioned – economics and attitude.
Women can not have more than two mates at a time – though she can certainly have multiple sexual partners. If she were to become pregnant she then has to make a choice about what is best for her baby.
My attitude toward this is neither cultural nor moral but rather biological. Sometimes I wonder whether polygamist societies are better off in the sense that there is a wider support network for raising multiple children.[/quote]
I disagree. I can understand and agree with you point from a monetary point of view. Donald Trump could provide for like 4 wives and 20 kids. But what about their emotional well being? Kids need all the love and support they can get and I just don’t think one man could spread himself that thin. And could you imagaine how hostile the wives would be toward each other? I think somthing else you should think about is whats called the “dual mating” strategy. It’s actually really simple. Girl meets guy that she doesnt like much but he likes her.Girl gets guy to commit (marry) her. Girl finds guy she likes with better genes and has a fling with him so she can consciously or subconsciously get pregnant. The guy she married never finds out and she gets the support she needs and the DNA she wants. This kind of thing happens all the time in the Army, trust me.
[quote]jawara wrote:
But what about their emotional well being? Kids need all the love and support they can get and I just don’t think one man could spread himself that thin. And could you imagaine how hostile the wives would be toward each other? [/quote]
The biggest problems most children have is not from a lack of attention but rather a surplus of it. We live in a very infantilizing society these days. There is just too much for children to do and have and parents are way too forgiving of their children’s neuroses. I believe the best thing for children is to be raised around many other children in a home where they can be properly loved, educated, and disciplined.
Other things being equal though, it is better that children have too much attention than too little. A polygamist society would be better for them.
The fact that you cannot conceive of a case where women would get along in a multiple marriage partnership is just due to the fact that you live in Western society where it isn’t practiced and is therefore out of the norm. It is perfectly conceivable that women could get along especially since the benfits would outweigh the negative – i.e, having a mate that leaves them to fend for themselves.
[quote]
I think somthing else you should think about is whats called the “dual mating” strategy. It’s actually really simple. Girl meets guy that she doesnt like much but he likes her.Girl gets guy to commit (marry) her. Girl finds guy she likes with better genes and has a fling with him so she can consciously or subconsciously get pregnant. The guy she married never finds out and she gets the support she needs and the DNA she wants. This kind of thing happens all the time in the Army, trust me.[/quote]
Yes, this is a natural thing from a biological perspective because women will always have far fewer good choices for a paternal partner than they will have for a sexual partner. In other words it will always be easier for a woman to find a sexual mate than it is to find a man reliable enough to settle down with – so to speak. This is one more argument in favor of polygamy in my opinion.
Incidentally, it used to be military members were not allowed to marry in their first enlistment specifically because it was viewed as disastrous to their morale. A man cannot be an effective warrior when he is worried about “Jodi” back home messing with his woman. Though a man’s sexual appetite can be one of the best motivators ever.
Well, Osama bin Laden was a product of a harem. Sheikh bin Laden had roughly 70 sons, OBL being one. Look at OBL: he turned out fine! Islamic harems are just what the West needs, I think. I mean, distant, aloof, and wealthy fathers turning out sons with daddy issues due to their fathers being, well, distant and aloof. What’s to worry about? Let’s bring back ancient Near Eastern practices!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Well, Osama bin Laden was a product of a harem. Sheikh bin Laden had roughly 70 sons, OBL being one. Look at OBL: he turned out fine! Islamic harems are just what the West needs, I think. I mean, distant, aloof, and wealthy fathers turning out sons with daddy issues due to their fathers being, well, distant and aloof. What’s to worry about? Let’s bring back ancient Near Eastern practices! [/quote]
Oh wow! You have exactly one data point to go on. Sorry but your generalization is not very good.
You are confusing the means that raised OBL with the ideology that raised him. Why is there any reason to believe that Western culture and ideology would or would not produce an other OBL regardless of familial norms?
Hell yes, polygamy is a far superior method for providing for the needs of a family than a traditional family homes. A harem is precisely what every man needs. I cannot help that you cannot escape the feminist western way of thinking about it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, Osama bin Laden was a product of a harem. Sheikh bin Laden had roughly 70 sons, OBL being one. Look at OBL: he turned out fine! Islamic harems are just what the West needs, I think.
I mean, distant, aloof, and wealthy fathers turning out sons with daddy issues due to their fathers being, well, distant and aloof. What’s to worry about? Let’s bring back ancient Near Eastern practices!
Oh wow! You have exactly one data point to go on. Sorry but your generalization is not very good.
You are confusing the means that raised OBL with the ideology that raised him. Why is there any reason to believe that Western culture and ideology would or would not produce an other OBL regardless of familial norms?
Hell yes, polygamy is a far superior method for providing for the needs of a family than a traditional family homes. A harem is precisely what every man needs. I cannot help that you cannot escape the feminist western way of thinking about it.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity, are you married?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are you married?[/quote]
Yes, and I freely admit she does not agree with me on this subject and it has been the cause of more than one argument.
The reason why she disagrees with me is a completely “moral” question and not the product of scientific thinking. She is used to the idea that a man should only be with one woman at a time as is reinforced by pop-culture, etc.
Consider this though: many men have successfully provided for multiple children from various women why should they not all get along and become one family? From an economic standpoint it makes the most sense. If it were an accepted practice a man could even include his mate(s) in the decision to bring in another woman to the fold.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are you married?
Yes, and I freely admit she does not agree with me on this subject and it has been the cause of more than one argument.
The reason why she disagrees with me is a completely “moral” question and not the product of scientific thinking. She is used to the idea that a man should only be with one woman at a time as is reinforced by pop-culture, etc.
Consider this though: many men have successfully provided for multiple children from various women why should they not all get along and become one family? From an economic standpoint it makes the most sense. If it were an accepted practice a man could even include his mate(s) in the decision to bring in another woman to the fold.[/quote]
I suppose trying to reason with you is like banging my head against a wall. Anyways, we’re not talking about your version of polygamy (a unicorn in practice), but the Islamic version, which is heavily entrenched in an ancient Near Eastern way of thinking and involves treating women as property.
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/266jhfgd.asp?pg=1
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Just out of curiosity, are you married?
Yes, and I freely admit she does not agree with me on this subject and it has been the cause of more than one argument.
The reason why she disagrees with me is a completely “moral” question and not the product of scientific thinking. She is used to the idea that a man should only be with one woman at a time as is reinforced by pop-culture, etc.
Consider this though: many men have successfully provided for multiple children from various women why should they not all get along and become one family? From an economic standpoint it makes the most sense. If it were an accepted practice a man could even include his mate(s) in the decision to bring in another woman to the fold.
I suppose trying to reason with you is like banging my head against a wall. Anyways, we’re not talking about your version of polygamy (a unicorn in practice), but the Islamic version, which is heavily entrenched in an ancient Near Eastern way of thinking and involves treating women as property.
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/266jhfgd.asp?pg=1
[/quote]
I don’t care about Islam. It has nothing to do with reality except for the fact that its ideology influences it to some extent.
I don’t see how that has anything to do with the practice of polygamy in general. I also don’t see how the practice of Islam refutes the idea of polygamy.
But please, by all means, I invite you to use some reason.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, Osama bin Laden was a product of a harem. Sheikh bin Laden had roughly 70 sons, OBL being one. Look at OBL: he turned out fine! Islamic harems are just what the West needs, I think.
I mean, distant, aloof, and wealthy fathers turning out sons with daddy issues due to their fathers being, well, distant and aloof. What’s to worry about? Let’s bring back ancient Near Eastern practices!
Oh wow! You have exactly one data point to go on. Sorry but your generalization is not very good.
You are confusing the means that raised OBL with the ideology that raised him. Why is there any reason to believe that Western culture and ideology would or would not produce an other OBL regardless of familial norms?
Hell yes, polygamy is a far superior method for providing for the needs of a family than a traditional family homes. A harem is precisely what every man needs. I cannot help that you cannot escape the feminist western way of thinking about it.
Just out of curiosity, are you married?[/quote]
He was until she read this thread 
[quote]pat wrote:
He was until she read this thread
[/quote]
Yes. She and I have had many “academic” disputes about this very subject. The first few years were difficult but she has resigned herself to the fact that I am an argumentative “dirty old hornball”.
Besides, sex is not just for reproduction. It’s like a more sexy form of wrestling that one can do with as many partners as the other partners allow. I feel that it is more practical if the other partner is involved in the choices in some way.
When confronted with the possibility of a sexual relationship with an other woman there are a few choices one has to make:
My moral compunction would lead me to option 2 but then comes the question of whether or not I would be willing to concede this point when the question arises about her having extramarital affairs. If I am honest with myself, its not the idea of my wife having sex with another man so much that bothers me but rather the possibility of an emotional attachment on her behalf. Also, the idea of allowing myself to become sexually threatened by an other man is not an option.
I think a woman should not have an emotional/sexual attachment to more than one man; whereas I do not think there is anything that conflicts with a man’s nature in this regard, as per the explanation and caveats I have already stated.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Well, Osama bin Laden was a product of a harem. Sheikh bin Laden had roughly 70 sons, OBL being one. Look at OBL: he turned out fine! Islamic harems are just what the West needs, I think. I mean, distant, aloof, and wealthy fathers turning out sons with daddy issues due to their fathers being, well, distant and aloof. What’s to worry about? Let’s bring back ancient Near Eastern practices! [/quote]
Good point PRCalDude!!!
There’s a great book about islamic terrorism called “The Looming Tower”. It goes into great detail about OBL’s longing to impress his nonexistant father.
It’s also a well known fact that kids that come from fatherless homes have much higher chances of being screwed up. Kids need BOTH parents in the home and they need to be actually raised by there PARENTS and not by a HDTV screen.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
He was until she read this thread
Yes. She and I have had many “academic” disputes about this very subject. The first few years were difficult but she has resigned herself to the fact that I am an argumentative “dirty old hornball”.
Besides, sex is not just for reproduction. It’s like a more sexy form of wrestling that one can do with as many partners as the other partners allow. I feel that it is more practical if the other partner is involved in the choices in some way.
When confronted with the possibility of a sexual relationship with an other woman there are a few choices one has to make:
My moral compunction would lead me to option 2 but then comes the question of whether or not I would be willing to concede this point when the question arises about her having extramarital affairs. If I am honest with myself, its not the idea of my wife having sex with another man so much that bothers me but rather the possibility of an emotional attachment on her behalf. Also, the idea of allowing myself to become sexually threatened by an other man is not an option.
I think a woman should not have an emotional/sexual attachment to more than one man; whereas I do not think there is anything that conflicts with a man’s nature in this regard, as per the explanation and caveats I have already stated.[/quote]
If sex wasnt about reproduction than you wouldnt really about how attractive women would. The reason why you like good looking women is because they have good DNA. You like women with good DNA because they would be better able to carry on YOUR DNA. I’m sure you can figure out the rest.
[quote]jawara wrote:
If sex wasnt about reproduction than you wouldnt really about how attractive women would. The reason why you like good looking women is because they have good DNA. You like women with good DNA because they would be better able to carry on YOUR DNA. I’m sure you can figure out the rest.[/quote]
Yes, that is all well and good but ask yourself this, would you have sex with a woman if you knew it would always lead to a child being born?
We have contraception precisely because we enjoy sex but not necessarily raising children.
There may be attraction for some biological reason such as you suggest but it does not refute the idea that sex can be for enjoyment too.
[quote]jawara wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, Osama bin Laden was a product of a harem. Sheikh bin Laden had roughly 70 sons, OBL being one. Look at OBL: he turned out fine! Islamic harems are just what the West needs, I think. I mean, distant, aloof, and wealthy fathers turning out sons with daddy issues due to their fathers being, well, distant and aloof. What’s to worry about? Let’s bring back ancient Near Eastern practices!
Good point PRCalDude!!!
There’s a great book about islamic terrorism called “The Looming Tower”. It goes into great detail about OBL’s longing to impress his nonexistant father.
It’s also a well known fact that kids that come from fatherless homes have much higher chances of being screwed up. Kids need BOTH parents in the home and they need to be actually raised by there PARENTS and not by a HDTV screen.[/quote]
His 69 brothers do not seem to be psychopaths.
Then, to a few hundred million people or so he is a hero.
So it is really hard to tell whether his upbringing was a resounding success or an utter failure and either way his brothers do not seem to have been affected by it in any significant way at all.
[quote]orion wrote:
jawara wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, Osama bin Laden was a product of a harem. Sheikh bin Laden had roughly 70 sons, OBL being one. Look at OBL: he turned out fine! Islamic harems are just what the West needs, I think. I mean, distant, aloof, and wealthy fathers turning out sons with daddy issues due to their fathers being, well, distant and aloof. What’s to worry about? Let’s bring back ancient Near Eastern practices!
Good point PRCalDude!!!
There’s a great book about islamic terrorism called “The Looming Tower”. It goes into great detail about OBL’s longing to impress his nonexistant father.
It’s also a well known fact that kids that come from fatherless homes have much higher chances of being screwed up. Kids need BOTH parents in the home and they need to be actually raised by there PARENTS and not by a HDTV screen.
His 69 brothers do not seem to be psychopaths.
[/quote]
Actually, read “Inside the Kingdom.” Yeslam bin Laden grew more and more paranoid as time went on, and he tried to lure his estranged wife back into the kingdom to have her beheaded after he started to lose it. We don’t know about the rest of his brothers, their jihad financing activities, or anything else. We just know, in general, what comes out of Saudi Arabia. It isn’t anything good.
Yeah, that’s sort of a problem, isn’t it? Wait a minute, I thought the overwhelming majority of Muslims didn’t support that sort of thing, but here you’re saying about 30% of them do. Hmmm… It’s almost like jihad really is “warfare for the spread of religion.” Osama bin Laden did call us all to Islam before 9/11, after all.
[quote]jawara wrote:
If sex wasnt about reproduction than you wouldnt really about how attractive women would. The reason why you like good looking women is because they have good DNA. You like women with good DNA because they would be better able to carry on YOUR DNA. I’m sure you can figure out the rest.[/quote]
Huh? So when you actually think a puppy is cute, a car is sexy or a painting esthetically pleasing, what you’re really thinking is Let’s Hump Them?
It don’t compute.
From a sociological standpoint, polygyny is actually beneficial for women while detrimental for males. For the average woman (the extremely desirable ones being an exception), sharing a wealthy, genetically robust male makes more sense than marrying a loser. Men, on the other hand, get the short end of the stick in polygynous societies because the lesser males don’t find a wife at all. Not to mention that men die in wars a lot more than women.
It is also worth noting that the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. That makes Man, as a species, naturally polygynous. But then again, you probably think the Earth is 6000 years old, that Darwin was a hack and that Man isn’t an animal. Such arguments are then likely to be lost on you.
And just to clarify a common misconception, a harem can (and in fact, did) extend to a man’s female siblings, mother, unmarried aunts, nieces, etc.
And Pookie: Bite Me!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think a woman should not have an emotional/sexual attachment to more than one man; whereas I do not think there is anything that conflicts with a man’s nature in this regard, as per the explanation and caveats I have already stated.[/quote]
It makes more sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint for a woman to have children with as many different fathers as possible. There would be a better chance that way of at least one child having a good mix of genes and the ability to take care of the mother in old age.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Well, Osama bin Laden was a product of a harem. Sheikh bin Laden had roughly 70 sons, OBL being one. Look at OBL: he turned out fine! Islamic harems are just what the West needs, I think. I mean, distant, aloof, and wealthy fathers turning out sons with daddy issues due to their fathers being, well, distant and aloof. What’s to worry about? Let’s bring back ancient Near Eastern practices! [/quote]
Europe will pay for letting all of these Muslims into their soil on day. Can you just imagine when Europeans in places like England and France are a minority in their own countries and they have nuclear armed nations with Muslim majorities there enforcing things like Sharia law and the like?
Makes more sense than state recognized homo marriages, at least.