|
Satya
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2008, 03:46:54 AM » |
|
From what I understand, polygyny has been very common in ancient times, simply out of necessity(as males die younger due to leading more dangerous lives). Some areas of Africa have extremely high rates of polygyny(50%+?) due to constant wars, HIV/AIDS, the tribal practice of a widow always being immediately married off to her brother-in-law in order to ensure maintenance of her and her children, etc.)
Notice how men like polygyny and women polyandry? Has anyone ever practiced this? *You know, I've often wondered how interesting it would have been if I'd been brought up as a Mormon Fundamentalist! Of course, some sects such as the FLDS are horrific in their behaviour(towards both their men and women), but, apparently, c.2/3 of all Mormon Fundamentalists are quite well-behaved, not going in for the practice of child-brides, incest or whatever.*
Ha ha! Why do they practice polygyny anyway? Is it because they are so few in number? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TylerDurden
|
|
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2008, 04:01:18 AM » |
|
Notice how men like polygyny and women polyandry? Has anyone ever practiced this? Polyandry was practised in Tibet(because husbands had to wander around a lot with infrequent access to their wives). Polygyny has always been part of almost all societies, until very recently with the advent of Western Civilisation. Ha ha! Why do they practice polygyny anyway? Is it because they are so few in number?
For most societies, that would be true, not for Mormon Fundamentalists. As any woman of a certain age will tell you, parties for older-aged people tend to frown on inviting single women above a certain age, as, otherwise, due to greater male mortality in the first few decades of life, there is too high a female to male ratio, which can cause problems. Introducing polygyny, despite feminist assertions re cruelty, enables the widow in question to be married to someone else(and thereby maintaining social respectability and steady financial assistance from the new husband). Social guidelines(such as in Islam and various tribes), ensure that the new wife has to be equally provided for. Re Mormon Fundamentalists:- Most "normal" Mormon Fundamentalists allow their children to follow whatever path they want(ie monogamy or polygamy). The result is that only a few of their children in each subsequent generation choose the path of polygamy, and most such polygamous relationships, while producing far more children on average than monogamous relationships, only involve 2-3 wives at most. The trouble is that the FLDS Mormons and one or two similiar groups(comprising c.1/3 -1/2 of polygamous US groups) encourage young women to marry at the age of 14(sometimes to their uncles!), plus they deliberately expel most of their young boys when the latter reach the teenage years, out of various religious pretexts, so that the older men have enough of the younger women to marry for polygamous purposes. The young men discarded in this way, tend to be based in the Las Vegas area and are called "Lost Boys". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
|
|
|
|
Satya
Guest
|
|
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2008, 09:37:39 AM » |
|
Polyandry was practised in Tibet(because husbands had to wander around a lot with infrequent access to their wives). Polygyny has always been part of almost all societies, until very recently with the advent of Western Civilisation.
Actually, polyandrous societies have existed all over the globe. Polynesia, Mongolia, Nepal, Americas, Australia. I took cultural anthropology in college years ago, and really, both forms and also multiple partners of both sexes are historical. Besides, how do you account for sperm competition in humans if females historically had only one partner? http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/a-seedy-rivalry/"First, there’s the matter of sperm competition. The extent to which this has been a force in human evolution is controversial, because of what it says about the sexual behavior of our female ancestors. As I mentioned a moment ago, sperm competition can only happen in humans if a woman has sex with more than one male during the time when she is fertile. This means that she has to have sex with at least two men in the same week. (The exact window of opportunity is the subject of debate; but although the egg is only viable for about 24 hours, sperm can survive in the reproductive tract for at least a few days.)
"This certainly happens occasionally. There are a handful of reported cases of non-identical twins having different fathers — which can only happen if a woman ovulates two eggs at once (which happens from time to time) and also has sex with two men. The question is whether sperm competition happened often enough in our past to have shaped the sexual physiology of men.
"The odds are that it did."http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/62919.phphttp://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/EvolutionPage/FinalPapers/Sex3.htm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
akaikumo
|
|
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2008, 01:28:35 PM » |
|
This thread is spurring some interesting conversation. Never knew any of that. I never understood why polygamy is illegal, so long as all parties involved are consenting adults and not 14 year olds marrying their uncles. :  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TylerDurden
|
|
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2008, 05:46:46 PM » |
|
Actually, polyandrous societies have existed all over the globe. Polynesia, Mongolia, Nepal, Americas, Australia. I took cultural anthropology in college years ago, and really, both forms and also multiple partners of both sexes are historical.
Besides, how do you account for sperm competition in humans if females historically had only one partner? I don't dispute that women can have affairs with other males while in a specific married relationship - after all, it's estimated that paternity fraud occurs anywhere from 10% to 30% of the time. It's just I'd only ever heard of Tibet as an example of polyandry, where a woman actually has 2 or more husbands(as opposed to having one husband and several other male lovers). The problem with polyandry is simply that while there are slightly more males than females born each generation, males are much more likely to die young due to wars/suicide/childhood diseases etc., so that the female:male ratio rises inexorably - so there's usually a lack of supply for women who want two or more husbands - whereas, with polygyny, it becomes more feasible as an option to provide for recently widowed wives. Interesting to find out that it's more widespread than Tibet, though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
|
|
|
|
wodgina6722
|
|
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2008, 06:24:47 PM » |
|
I don't dispute that women can have affairs with other males while in a specific married relationship - after all, it's estimated that paternity fraud occurs anywhere from 10% to 30% of the time. It's just I'd only ever heard of Tibet as an example of polyandry, where a woman actually has 2 or more husbands(as opposed to having one husband and several other male lovers). The problem with polyandry is simply that while there are slightly more males than females born each generation, males are much more likely to die young due to wars/suicide/childhood diseases etc., so that the female:male ratio rises inexorably - so there's usually a lack of supply for women who want two or more husbands - whereas, with polygyny, it becomes more feasible as an option to provide for recently widowed wives. Interesting to find out that it's more widespread than Tibet, though.
The paternity fraud thing makes a lot of evolutionary sense, mate with the male with the strongest genes (alpha male) and live with the partner who has fatherly instincts and can provide for the offspring. The best way of doing this would be to trick the male into thinking the offspring are his!! whether it's moral or not our genes don't care because it's a great way to give the offspring the best chance of survival. There's a different, far more common version of this where women will get pregnant to one guy (bad boy/alpha male) and pop out a few with him then hook up long term with a 'provider' . Now this one I see all the time... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 06:28:30 PM by wodgina6722 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Satya
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2008, 03:31:58 AM » |
|
I don't dispute that women can have affairs with other males while in a specific married relationship - after all, it's estimated that paternity fraud occurs anywhere from 10% to 30% of the time. It's just I'd only ever heard of Tibet as an example of polyandry, where a woman actually has 2 or more husbands(as opposed to having one husband and several other male lovers). The problem with polyandry is simply that while there are slightly more males than females born each generation, males are much more likely to die young due to wars/suicide/childhood diseases etc., so that the female:male ratio rises inexorably - so there's usually a lack of supply for women who want two or more husbands - whereas, with polygyny, it becomes more feasible as an option to provide for recently widowed wives. Interesting to find out that it's more widespread than Tibet, though.
I am sure polygyny is the more common form in our recorded history. In the animal kingdom at large, most polygynous species do not have a large percentage of the male population mating at all. For humans of the Paleolithic Era, however, I do find it interesting that, according to skeletal remains:
"The data come from age estimates of skeletons from various archaeological sites representing a variety of time periods in the Mediterranean region. Paleolithic skeletons indicated a life expectancy of 35.4 years for men and 30.0 years for women, which includes a high rate of infant mortality. This is consistent with data from the Inuit that I posted a while back (life expectancy excluding infant mortality = 43.5 years). With modest fluctuations, the life expectancy of humans in this Mediterranean region remained similar from paleolithic times until the last century. I suspect the paleolithic people died most often from warfare, accidents and infectious disease, while the neolithic people died mostly from chronic disease, and infectious diseases that evolved along with the domestication of animals (zoonotic diseases). But I'm just speculating based on what I know about modern populations, so you can take that at face value."http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-growth-of.htmlThis would support the sharing of men by women in paleo times. It would be vital for the female to reproduce before her early demise, and multiple males would help ensure that. In modern India and China, the rampant selection of male children and abortion of females has set up a really bad situation where men are having trouble finding a mate. Of course, it's the women who end up suffering in the forced sex trade. Polyandry might be the only solution if everyone wants a mate in Asia soon. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 08, 2008, 03:35:55 AM by Satya »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Satya
Guest
|
|
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2008, 03:35:24 AM » |
|
The paternity fraud thing makes a lot of evolutionary sense, mate with the male with the strongest genes (alpha male) and live with the partner who has fatherly instincts and can provide for the offspring. The best way of doing this would be to trick the male into thinking the offspring are his!! whether it's moral or not our genes don't care because it's a great way to give the offspring the best chance of survival.
There's a different, far more common version of this where women will get pregnant to one guy (bad boy/alpha male) and pop out a few with him then hook up long term with a 'provider' . Now this one I see all the time...
That's right, and the female and offspring truly are, in an anthropological sense, the family unit. You know, the homicide rate for infant step children is really pretty high when compared to homicide of biological children. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rawrock2
Guest
|
|
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2008, 07:34:02 PM » |
|
Our paleo ancestors were most likely polygamous and pro-making-and-raising children. 100% true! Monogamy was not maintained historically. They were pro-making-and-raising children AND they also married kiddies as well. I know that’s probably a sensitive subject but that IS how it was. Not that I advocate Pedophilia but I wonder how the very mention of something that was the norm decades ago can be so dangerous. And I will definitely not be having kids with someone who doesn't share the same views on health as I do, for the sake of my child. I agree with you here personally but it all depends on how much the issue in question means to you. You and your significant other won’t have the same views on everything, right? I've learned whom not to discuss diet with. It's sort of like politics and religion with some people. I can not agree with you more. Diet should most definitely be included as one of the things that you don’t discuss with people. People get very sensitive when diet is discussed. sex does matter in my book Amen we should be careful not to adopt a 'them and us" approach to those on cooked-food diets that’s right. there can be times when food does need to be cooked. If you find yourself in a foreign land where disease-ridden meat is rampant or the quality is unknown then cooking your meat IS the way to go. Eating raw meat then may be like playing roulette. Polyandry might be the only solution if everyone wants a mate in Asia soon. The tide is turning in parts of Asia. In Korea, males used to be the preferred offspring but more and more couples (females AND males) desire a baby girl rather than a son. However, when species become less sexually dimorphic, (ie. male and females are closer in size) monogamy is the general trend, and this is the case for humans. I don’t know about that one… But hey I’m not history expert or anything, just thinking out loud |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
reyyzl
Scavenger
 Offline
Gender: 
 United States
Posts: 22
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2008, 05:49:03 PM » |
|
Notice how men like polygyny and women polyandry? Has anyone ever practiced this?
Ha ha! Why do they practice polygyny anyway? Is it because they are so few in number?
In that case, you referring to the Mormons and child-brides, I hear they chase off many of the teenage sons, to narrow the pool. There's a cable show called "Big Love" that I think is starting a new season tomorrow night. It's supposed to show polygyny. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
