Monogamy versus Polygamy in modern civilization

David777

David777

Well-known Member
Location
Silicon Valley
Note recently read the book Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy made us Human.

Books! How do you read and what do you read?

The following is where that has currently led me.

8 minutes
WOMEN are making society POLYGAMOUS: the surprising consequence of female success


72 minutes
Christianity, the Sexual Revolution and the future of the West

snippets:

@34:00 ...The average man in Britain watches 70 minutes of porn a week and 2% of men watch 7 hours.

Though somewhat long as a panel-like British media discussion, highly recommend watching the above YouTube link that IMO contains a surprising amount of well considered wisdom this person agrees with. These two people have carefully thought about these rarely openly publicly discussed subjects that critics work to silence, that includes having written popular books. Louise Perry has an excellent grasp of mating psychology.
 

One thing I could never understand about polygamous communities is that the birthrate of male and females are essentially equal. So, if one male has 8 or 9 wives, that means there are 7-8 males, who have no mates. Those men have to hit the road, or live a life of permanent bachelorhood. To me, this seems like a cruel and sadistic practice.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
One thing I could never understand about polygamous communities is that the birthrate of male and females are essentially equal. So, if one male has 8 or 9 wives, that means there are 7-8 males, who have no mates. Those men have to hit the road, or live a life of permanent bachelorhood. To me, this seems like a cruel and sadistic practice.
Click to expand...
Actually, ignoring the polygamic aspect itself, this was "normal" before the end of WW II. There were a lot more singles who never married, and widowers who never remarried. There ended up being more never-married men in society than women.

What changed was (in the US) things like the GI Bill and Eisenhower's Interstate Highway system. Those provided education and opportunity to have the resources to marry and start families, buy homes, etc. It was an idyllic time.

All of that progress has been reversed since then.

Sadly, biased outlets still cast the blame on the men:



But I regret posting to this thread. It is liable to quickly degenerate into a colonoscopy without anesthesia.
 

fuzzybuddy said:
One thing I could never understand about polygamous communities is that the birthrate of male and females are essentially equal. So, if one male has 8 or 9 wives, that means there are 7-8 males, who have no mates. Those men have to hit the road, or live a life of permanent bachelorhood. To me, this seems like a cruel and sadistic practice.
Click to expand...


Yes I've wondered that too - but it depends on other factors.

After the world wars, for example, there was a disproportionate number of young women - because so many men killed in wars - so it was more women who lived permanant single life.
I wonder if in hunter/gatherer societies that happened too - ie more men killed in action and that evened out number of remainder to have more wives.
Also older men were often given younger women as second,third etc wives whereas older women stayed widowed
- that may have evened out numbers too
 
dilettante said:
Actually, ignoring the polygamic aspect itself, this was "normal" before the end of WW II. There were a lot more singles who never married, and widowers who never remarried. There ended up being more never-married men in society than women.

What changed was (in the US) things like the GI Bill and Eisenhower's Interstate Highway system. Those provided education and opportunity to have the resources to marry and start families, buy homes, etc. It was an idyllic time.

All of that progress has been reversed since then.

Sadly, biased outlets still cast the blame on the men:



But I regret posting to this thread. It is liable to quickly degenerate into a colonoscopy without anesthesia.
Click to expand...
The comments below the video are very worth reading.
 
Natural or not - keeping up with one permanent room mate has been a challenge occasionally. After years of 1:1 submission training the concept of Three D's is not yet fully mastered as in Dirt Dishes Dishwasher.
 
Another Louise Perry interview on why monogamy is better for societies and civilizations despite polygamy being dominant both historically and today outside of Western civilizations. Also explains why in polygamous societies a male to female imbalance cause societal friction.

8:33 minutes
Is Monogamy Good for Society?



In feudal Medieval Europe and Ottoman kingdoms, although jus primae noctis, was not legal law, those men with power sometimes did whatever until such vile practices were eventually silenced. An example of the worst with polygamous societies. Of course, that was an outgrowth of centuries of warmongering hordes killing most men and all others in their paths except attractive younger women they then enslaved as concubines with Genghis Khan the most infamous.

The jus primae noctis or "right of first night", also known as the "droit de seigneur" was the supposed practice whereby a feudal lord had the right to take the virginity of any peasant girl on his estates. Despite supposedly being a widespread practice in the Middle Ages, there is zero mention of it in any Medieval document, legal case or anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Bea said:
I’m not convinced that any of it is natural or necessary but if it works for you and you can afford it, it’s really none of my business.
😉🤭😂

View attachment 378569
Click to expand...
Lol! I can't imagine a bigger nightmare than four husbands sitting waiting for their lunch. Four lots of laundry. How many fridges for all the beers. As for the washing up....
Nope, one is enough.
 
Polygamy has a place in societies where men are the head of the family and inheritance is exclusively down the male line. A widow without children or without adult sons faced destitution unless she could find another husband. In times of war when many men were lost in battle a widow might be provided for by marrying her father in law, even if he already had a wife. She could also demand that her husband's brother lie with her so that she could bear a son related to her dead husband.

In pre-christian society versions of polygamy were early forms of social security for women.
Muhammad married a number of older widows whose husbands had been killed in battle to honour and protect them.

There is no pressing reason why modern women need to marry a man who is already married.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
One thing I could never understand about polygamous communities is that the birthrate of male and females are essentially equal. So, if one male has 8 or 9 wives, that means there are 7-8 males, who have no mates. Those men have to hit the road, or live a life of permanent bachelorhood. To me, this seems like a cruel and sadistic practice.
Click to expand...
This problem has occurred in certain cults where the older males scoop up a few younger women for their wives.

I like the way some Native American tribes deal with male-female issues. In one, the traditional family home on the reservation is owned by the wife and transfers to the oldest daughter. But, the men have control over the religious and other traditions of the tribe. Thus, there is a balance of power. Of course, for property outside the reservation, the rules are the same as for anybody else. If your name is on the title, you own it. If not, you don’t.
 
Last edited:
fuzzybuddy said:
One thing I could never understand about polygamous communities is that the birthrate of male and females are essentially equal. So, if one male has 8 or 9 wives, that means there are 7-8 males, who have no mates. Those men have to hit the road, or live a life of permanent bachelorhood. To me, this seems like a cruel and sadistic practice.
Click to expand...

That's the way it is with many species in nature. The males battle it out and the dominate one is the only one that gets to mate with all the females.

 
I've never studied anthropology, but my guess is that marriage developed quickly in order to protect the mother. Still, in modern times often the mother simply "marries" the state. Not the same.
 
I was in a polygamous marriage for 28 years. I wavered for 3 before deciding to get married, despite not knowing anyone else in that situation (besides my co-wife, of course). The arrangement worked very well for me. I said I'd never marry again after my first husband. And if my second marriage would have been a "traditional" one, I wouldn't have done it. There were no young girl wives. We were all in our mid to late 40's at the time. There was no communal living. I had my place and my much needed space and they had theirs.

We were considered the ideal model for polygamy in the community. My co-wife and I got along, helped each other with projects and socialized together. We had a tradition of going out to dinner to celebrate each others' birthdays. Even her sisters invited me to their events and performances. I was apprehensive about entering into a polygamous marriage at first, but my family and friends came to love my husband, which wasn't hard to do because he was a kind, caring man who'd give the shirt off his back. May he and my co-wife rest in paradise.

About three years before I finally gave a definitive yes, I had read books about polygamy both by Muslim authors and a non-Muslim female author, I was surprised to find the latter. I can't think of the name of it right now though...it has been more than 3 decades since I read it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top