[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makes more sense than state recognized homo marriages, at least.[/quote]
I think the real issue here is government control of people’s lives. They like having that power.
[quote]Christine wrote:
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]
It is ultimately the woman’s inability to have more than one mate that she is forced to “nest” with only one.
A male can sire many children all at once. Polygamy is the best option nature has to offer until an other means becomes available.
Addendum to the above:
Also consider that in a polygamist society it is the the dominant male that will be the one who get’s to mate.
This also does not imply physically dominant since it is culture that decides what genetic traits get selected.
A woman may not be able to have children from many different men all at once, but I really believe that she and nature are best served with having children from different sperm donors.
Why is a woman inable to have more than one mate? There are probably plenty examples of men raising children who turn out to be the product of another man’s sperm. Prior to DNA tests, you couldn’t guaranty anything other than the woman being the mother of the child.
[quote]Christine wrote:
A woman may not be able to have children from many different men all at once, but I really believe that she and nature are best served with having children from different sperm donors.
Why is a woman in-able to have more than one mate? There are probably plenty examples of men raising children who turn out to be the product of another man’s sperm. Prior to DNA tests, you couldn’t guaranty anything other than the woman being the mother of the child.
[/quote]
Well, then you are basically arguing in favor of no sexual relationship whatsoever. Which is just coupling. Other animals do it that way – like elephants.
A woman requires a support network to raise a child. With multiple male partners she would need either to choose one who will then not only provide for his own but also the others she may have until they are independent. I don’t see that happening at all. It’s hard enough to get them to take care of their own as it is.
The only other option is that she would not “marry” but rather live her entire life with her sisters, mother, and grandmother, etc.
This scenario would have had very interesting implications on the development of human society. For example, women would be some kick-ass hunters and would probably have chosen more prominent physical traits.
[quote]Christine wrote:
A woman may not be able to have children from many different men all at once, but I really believe that she and nature are best served with having children from different sperm donors.
Why is a woman inable to have more than one mate? There are probably plenty examples of men raising children who turn out to be the product of another man’s sperm. Prior to DNA tests, you couldn’t guaranty anything other than the woman being the mother of the child.[/quote]
You could guarantee at least a 25% infidelity rate.
Men = Root everything they find sexually arousing in sight. Usually stick around for twenty-something months (gestation + raising until the kid walks or some shit) before leaving to find another mate.
Women = Root every good specimen of a male around while keeping one sucker around to help raise the children and protect her and the kids. Obviously he as to think they’re his.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Christine wrote:
A woman may not be able to have children from many different men all at once, but I really believe that she and nature are best served with having children from different sperm donors.
Why is a woman in-able to have more than one mate? There are probably plenty examples of men raising children who turn out to be the product of another man’s sperm. Prior to DNA tests, you couldn’t guaranty anything other than the woman being the mother of the child.
Well, then you are basically arguing in favor of no sexual relationship whatsoever. Which is just coupling. Other animals do it that way – like elephants.
A woman requires a support network to raise a child. With multiple male partners she would need either to choose one who will then not only provide for his own but also the others she may have until they are independent. I don’t see that happening at all. It’s hard enough to get them to take care of their own as it is.
The only other option is that she would not “marry” but rather live her entire life with her sisters, mother, and grandmother, etc.
This scenario would have had very interesting implications on the development of human society. For example, women would be some kick-ass hunters and would probably have chosen more prominent physical traits.[/quote]
No, lots of men knowingly take care of children who aren’t a product of their sperm. I’ve known of step-fathers or parents who adopt that willingly take care of children who don’t belong to them.
I don’t see there only being two options. Ideally would be some sort of community of women and men raising all the children.
I think that sometimes men forget that women can enjoy sex too. And that they might like it with more than one man.
Also, just because you can’t conceive of a woman loving more than one man, doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Christine wrote:
A woman may not be able to have children from many different men all at once, but I really believe that she and nature are best served with having children from different sperm donors.
Why is a woman inable to have more than one mate? There are probably plenty examples of men raising children who turn out to be the product of another man’s sperm. Prior to DNA tests, you couldn’t guaranty anything other than the woman being the mother of the child.
You could guarantee at least a 25% infidelity rate.
Men = Root everything they find sexually arousing in sight. Usually stick around for twenty-something months (gestation + raising until the kid walks or some shit) before leaving to find another mate.
Women = Root every good specimen of a male around while keeping one sucker around to help raise the children and protect her and the kids. Obviously he as to think they’re his.[/quote]
I also wouldn’t call the guy who hangs around a sucker, but yes, women look for different types of mates depending upon where they are in as far as their cycle is concerned. Personally, I tend to be attracted to men who I wouldn’t consider marrying. Anyway, the “sucker” is just fulfilling a need. I am certain that he gets something out of the arrangement as well.
[quote]Christine wrote:
I think that sometimes men forget that women can enjoy sex too. And that they might like it with more than one man. [/quote]
Yes, I am one of those individuals that can only enjoy it if my partner also enjoys it.
Yes, I can conceive it happening. I know it does happen all the time. Still a woman is forced to decide what is ultimately good for her children.
My reason for questioning a matriarchal society is not out of belief that it is somehow inferior. It could work and indeed it is very interesting to consider the implications that may or may not have historically arisen as a result of it. We know, at least in the the last few thousand years this was not the norm but we have no way of knowing before then. We can only speculate based on man’s propensity to not change his culture much over time when there is no intermixing of cultures.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.
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]
Dude, you can’t get a woman pregnant till she’s ovulatiing your “what if” comment cant stand on its own.
Contraception hasnt been around all that long and is man made not natural.
I never said sex cant be for fun. Matter of fact it is fun, thats why God came up with it. It keeps our population going.
[quote]lixy wrote:
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.
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]
I said attractive WOMEN. I did not mention dogs or cars. And why would you say that I think the Earth is 6000 years old, that Darwin was a hack and that Man isn’t an animal? As a matter of fact I’m defending the fact that man IS an animal and has animal urges in this thread.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Women = Root every good specimen of a male around while keeping one sucker around to help raise the children and protect her and the kids. Obviously he as to think they’re his.[/quote]
Dual Mating Strategy Redirecting I mentioned this earlier. This is why babies often look like their father until about age 10. It lets dad know that he isnt wasting his time and energy on someone else’s DNA.
[quote]jawara wrote:
I said attractive WOMEN. I did not mention dogs or cars. And why would you say that I think the Earth is 6000 years old, that Darwin was a hack and that Man isn’t an animal? As a matter of fact I’m defending the fact that man IS an animal and has animal urges in this thread.[/quote]
My bad then. Had you confused with somebody else.
On another note, contraception has been around for about as long as Man has been linking sperm to babies.
[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. [/quote]
It didn’t take polygamy to give us two presidents in a row (and the second place guy this year) with daddy issues. Just saying.
[quote]lixy wrote:
jawara wrote:
I said attractive WOMEN. I did not mention dogs or cars. And why would you say that I think the Earth is 6000 years old, that Darwin was a hack and that Man isn’t an animal? As a matter of fact I’m defending the fact that man IS an animal and has animal urges in this thread.
My bad then. Had you confused with somebody else.
On another note, contraception has been around for about as long as Man has been linking sperm to babies.[/quote]
Ive heard the Egyptians were the first to invent condoms. I don’t know exactly how many years there are between Adam and Moses but I’m sure its a couple grand.
[quote]Christine wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Christine wrote:
A woman may not be able to have children from many different men all at once, but I really believe that she and nature are best served with having children from different sperm donors.
Why is a woman in-able to have more than one mate? There are probably plenty examples of men raising children who turn out to be the product of another man’s sperm. Prior to DNA tests, you couldn’t guaranty anything other than the woman being the mother of the child.
Well, then you are basically arguing in favor of no sexual relationship whatsoever. Which is just coupling. Other animals do it that way – like elephants.
A woman requires a support network to raise a child. With multiple male partners she would need either to choose one who will then not only provide for his own but also the others she may have until they are independent. I don’t see that happening at all. It’s hard enough to get them to take care of their own as it is.
The only other option is that she would not “marry” but rather live her entire life with her sisters, mother, and grandmother, etc.
This scenario would have had very interesting implications on the development of human society. For example, women would be some kick-ass hunters and would probably have chosen more prominent physical traits.
No, lots of men knowingly take care of children who aren’t a product of their sperm. I’ve known of step-fathers or parents who adopt that willingly take care of children who don’t belong to them.
[/quote]
According to some book on evolutionary psychology I have read that I would have a hard time finding right now, children that live in relationships that have even only one parent that is not their biological parent have a 40 times higher chance of being abused by a parent.
That might be better than having only one parent though.
Why is man made not natural? Man is natural, ergo our creations are natural too.
Sheesh.
[quote]lixy wrote:
And Pookie: Bite Me![/quote]
Sorry, my religion precludes me from biting people who eat their own underwear.
As for the topic at hand, I think polygamy is one of the root cause of the high incidence of radical fanatics among muslims.
Human births are very close to 50/50 among boys and girls. Any societal arrangement that gives more than one woman exclusively to each man will mean that a lot of men will find themselves without mates.
If all the successful males have four wives, then you have the bottom 75% of men who are alone and can’t reproduce. That gives you a very large pool of “losers” who will be angry, and most likely very easy to entice into doing violence to others. Especially if you promise them 72 virgins in exchange for giving their lives doing so.
Want to reduce muslim terrorism? Give each man a wife and a chance at a family and quit that stupid “virgins for martyrs” crap and they’ll mellow out within a generation.
[quote]pookie wrote:
…
[/quote]
You know precious little about the topic. So temper your posts.
The places where most terrorists come from are mostly societies where polygamy is a social taboo, painstakingly difficult in practice, if not downright forbidden.
Every single major terrorist attack carried after 9/11 was carried out by citizens of the attacked country. And that’s the way it’s going to keep happening in the future. That somebody feels the need to blow him/herself up along with others doesn’t have much to do with polygamy.
I can’t possibly approve of governments standing in the way of people uniting as a family. To whomever they want (that goes for same-sex couples). And to how many people they want.
Instead of looking at the cause of polygamy, you only consider it as a consequence. If you want interventionism, let it be in the name of an egalitarian society. That should take care of not only terrorists, but of a good deal of other criminal activities as well.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Human births are very close to 50/50 among boys and girls. Any societal arrangement that gives more than one woman exclusively to each man will mean that a lot of men will find themselves without mates.
[/quote]
But for how long? It seems that in areas heavy with certain chemicals, the ratio is moving towards 2/1 for girls over boys. If this continues and we maintain the current trend of 1:1 marriages, we could end up with a lot of women finding themselves without mates. Would that be as bad or worse than men without mates? What if polygyny were legalized in those areas just to give everyone a chance?