posted
Most mainstream Egyptologist postulate that polygamy only exist amongst the the royalty in ancient Egypt. The evidence for commoners is scant but it does point to a nuclear based family structure. However, the only inclusive way to get an answer for this would to ask a linguist that specializes in ancient Egyptian about the words for wife,family,and marriage. You would probably find your answer there.
You can also look into the branches of closely related modern languages that make up the Afro-asiatic language family.
Hope this helps.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: Mythology can also provide a good answer.
Yes, and it is interesting to note that all the gods were monogamous. Ausar (Osiris) for example was paired with Auset (Isis) and Set was paired with Nebti etc. Judging by both cultural trends and mythology, I'd have to say that monogamy was both the ideal and the norm with excepion to the kings.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from the question of tangible evidence, which I have yet to see, as far as the commoners are concerned, I would think the matter of polygamy would have gone hand in hand with the issue of the male's financial capacity. The more wealthy individuals would have been better positioned to engage in polygamy.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: Mythology can also provide a good answer.
Yes, and it is interesting to note that all the gods were monogamous. Ausar (Osiris) for example was paired with Auset (Isis) and Set was paired with Nebti etc.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ According to the myth, Nebhet was frustrated by the fact she couldn't get pregnant due to Set's infertility, so she seduced Ausar in the guise of her sister Auset which wasn't too hard because she and Auset were twins.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a documentary film i heart that the pharao's were polygamic. They had a principal wife and then secundry wifes. They also married with their sisters;
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, that was pretty much the case. The pharaoh had a chief wife who was chosen to give birth to an heir or maybe the other way around-- she chose him to rule Egypt in her favor. But then he had other wives and even concubines in his harem. What was considered peculiar about the pharaonic harem though, was that not all of the wives or indeed concubines were required to have sexual relations with the pharaoh. The marriage could purely be political as well as platonic, and what was considered more odd is that a wife of pharaoh could even have sexual relations with another man! This was unheard of in other cultures, but I have heard of it happening in some African societies.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, the common assumption is that he was the son of Akhenaton by a woman named Kiya and not Akhentaton's chief wife Nefertiti. More and more evidence supports this such as intimate gifts and objects left in Kiya's tomb by Tutankhamun (Kiya died either in childbirth or during Tut's childhood). Of course the only way we can be certain is with DNA analysis.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty: But then he had other wives and even concubines in his harem. What was considered peculiar about the pharaonic harem though, was that not all of the wives or indeed concubines were required to have sexual relations with the pharaoh. The marriage could purely be political as well as platonic, and what was considered more odd is that a wife of pharaoh could even have sexual relations with another man! This was unheard of in other cultures, but I have heard of it happening in some African societies.
Djehuty, where can I get more info on that? From what texts did your sources infer this?
From what I know having multiple sex partners while being married was considered worthy of being killed for if the perpetrator was a female.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Djehuty, where can I get more info on that? From what texts did your sources infer this?
Some of this info I read from Egyptology writings years back as well as anthropological writings.
quote:From what I know having multiple sex partners while being married was considered worthy of being killed for if the perpetrator was a female.
That depends on the culture. Some cultures were more permissive with sexual relations while others were not. That wives of the pharaoh had relations with other men and even had children by them comes from the fact that records show some royal children to be of the chief wife but not of the pharaoh at least biologically. One might argue these children came from a previous marriage, but the records indicate her only marriage was to the pharaoh. Understandably this was puzzling to many Egyptologists for decades. Probably the most well known example would be the founding princes of the 18th dynasty, Kamose and Ahmose I. They were the sons of Ahhotep I but not by her husband Sekenenra II but by an unknown male. The two princes were apparently described as the sons of Sekenenra in spirit but not of his body, meaning they were not his biologically. Even though wives of the royal harem were able to have children by other men, those children would still be adopted by the pharaoh. I understand the shock and disbelief at such a custom, and such was the same for many Egyptologists. The practice of women of a harem allowed to have relations with men other than their husband is extremely rare but apparently does exist including other cultures in Africa like in Central and Southern Africa. I don't know whether the practice is an exception for royal women only (as royalty in many African cultures have been known to engage in practices that are not only exclusive to them but considered odd or even taboo to the general populace such as close incest), or whether such a practice is vestige of matriarchal times, or both. Also, I do know that the custom of wife sharing is practiced by certain cultures including the Wodaabe of Africa. And as I mentioned, many of the women in the harem were only married to the pharaoh ritually and politically but did not have sexual relations with him at all.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The ancient Egyptians had a lot of those peculiar habits, and as you've said, more societies have them in Africa (I'm sure a lot of more traditional societies out of Africa have them too). Only one comes to mind that I can share, and that is the habit of the Masaai where men are permitted to sleep with the wives of other men, on the condition that the womens husband is of a similar age, (can't do it with elderly couples) and it is required that they bury their spear outside of the entrance so the womans husband finds another place to sleep. Interesting ay?
posted
^ Disgusting idea. The woman is no longer your wife if other men are piping her lol she's just everybody's girl at that point let's not fool ourselves
-------------------- Are we going somewhere or are you going to keep annoying me with your boring lectures professor-warrior?? Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, well I personally don't like the idea but that's what happened in some cultures apparently. But interestingly enough in those same cultures or many other cultures there is no notion of 'ownership' or possesion of a wife or any woman for that matter no more than there is of a man just because he is married. And if a man sleeps around with many women he's not considered by women to be "everybody's boy".
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Thnx for the apprehensive explanation
The ancient Egyptians had a lot of those peculiar habits, and as you've said, more societies have them in Africa (I'm sure a lot of more traditional societies out of Africa have them too). Only one comes to mind that I can share, and that is the habit of the Masaai where men are permitted to sleep with the wives of other men, on the condition that the womens husband is of a similar age, (can't do it with elderly couples) and it is required that they bury their spear outside of the entrance so the womans husband finds another place to sleep. Interesting ay?
Yes very interesting, but let's not forget we are speaking of the wives of the pharoahs and not the common Egyptian wives or even other elite wives-- such an act would certainly be considered adultery for them-- but then again the pharaoh's household is apparently the only known instance we have of polygamy in ancient Egyptian society.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And if a man sleeps around with many women he's not considered by women to be "everybody's boy".
It's a double-standard I believe men use to protect their legacy (their children).
A woman knows who her kids her, regardless of what her husband or sperm-donor is doing with his bits elsewhere. It's not so straightforward with men who have extra-horny wives. And since women are in such abundance and a man never really has to marry one, the compromise has to be made by the woman who wishes to be married to keep her legs closed to those whom she is not married to. I believe there is a place in society for women who like to sleep around (to put it pungently) but if they want to get married, they need to find a man who doesn't mind sharing his sacred space.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only Pharaoh "wife" that comes to mind, that had a hubby on the side, was under the "heiress" queen concept. Those who are not clear on what this means, should read on it. Understanding what is involved here, will remove confusion about Pharaohs letting their wives sleep around.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The practice of women of a harem allowed to have relations with men other than their husband is extremely rare but apparently does exist including other cultures in Africa like in Central and Southern Africa.
What are the names of the specific ethnic groups at hand, and how did you come to learn of this about these groups?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The only Pharaoh "wife" that comes to mind, that had a hubby on the side, was under the "heiress" queen concept. Those who are not clear on what this means, should read on it. Understanding what is involved here, will remove confusion about Pharaohs letting their wives sleep around.
3. THE QUEEN'S HUSBAND
A common assumption has been that the queen is Menkaure's wife, and that the position she occupies in the sculpture shows that she is subordinate to the pharaoh. Her more relaxed, naturalistic pose, the fact that her left foot does not extend as far forward as Menkaure's, the less rigid position of her arms, her open hands compared to his clenched fists, are believed to indicate her inferior rank within the rigorously hierarchic social organization of Egypt. Her pose has therefore been interpreted as that of passive, dutiful wife standing supportively next to her powerful husband. Especially recently, this interpretation of the queen has been challenged [see Nancy Luomala's article in the BIBLIOGRAPHY].
The queen's status, and that of all Egyptian women, but especially of those in the royal family, has been a matter of some debate. Women in Egypt seem to have enjoyed the same legal and economic rights as men, a situation which the Greeks, writing about the Egyptians, found very strange.
Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BCE and who had visited Egypt, lists among their contrary customs that "women buy and sell, the men abide at home and weave" (Book II, 35) [see Herodotus in the BIBLIOGRAPHY].
Diodorus of Sicily, who had visited Egypt some time between 60 and 56 BCE, writes that the Egyptians had a law "permitting men to marry their sisters" and adds that "it was ordained that the queen should have greater power and honour than the king and that among private persons the wife should enjoy authority over her husband" (Book I, 27) [see Diodorus of Sicily in the BIBLIOGRAPHY].
Such notions have contributed to the so-called "heiress" theory which argues that the right to the throne in Ancient Egypt was transmitted through the female line. A man, no matter what his status, be he the eldest son of the previous pharaoh or a commoner, became a pharaoh through his relationship to the queen. The pharaohship was legitimised through marriage to the "heiress" who was often the pharaoh's sister or his half-sister. It has been argued, therefore, that Ancient Egypt was a matrilineal society where power resided in the female line.
The queen represented in the statue, therefore, was no mere wife. Her position and gestures should be interpreted not as indicating inferiority and submission, but signalling her legitimization of Menkaure as pharaoh. She is shown in the act of presenting him, indicating to the world that he is the man whom she is identifying and establishing as pharaoh. Her pose, in fact, deliberately imitates that of the goddess Hathor in the triad statues and with whom she is clearly intended to be identified. The statue itself is a representation of this act of confirmation, and perhaps even a record of part of an actual confirmation ceremony.
While anthropologists have had few problems with the "heiress" theory, Egyptologists have been troubled by what they see as a lack of supporting evidence. Arguments against matriliny and the existence of an "heiress" are the apparent lack of a title for such women (none of the recorded titles, such as "principal wife," "king's wife," "king's daughter," "king's sister," "king's mother," "god's wife," or "mother of god," "daughter of the god," appears to specifically define the position), and the fact that there is not a "heiress list", an unbroken line of descent of royal women similar to the "king list" for pharaohs (however, it should be noted with respect to the latter that the surviving king lists, such as the Turin Papyrus, were drawn up in much later periods when a patriarchal bias dominated). Some scholars have rejected the theory outright.
The issue has become politicized in recent years by feminists who believe that denial of the "heiress" theory and the notion that Ancient Egypt was a matrilineal society are prompted by patriarchal thinking which is unwilling to acknolwedge the possibility that women could have played such a powerful role in a well-established, highly-structured, and long-enduring civilization. Some feminists also use the case of Egyptian matrilinearity to support the argument that patriarchy is a relatively recent phenomenon and that women enjoyed a much higher status and played a much greater role in prehistoric societies.
The "heiress" theory was developed partially to explain the phenomenon, noted by Diodorus of Sicily, of brother-sister marriages in Egyptian royal family. This is a sensitive issue because it seems to imply an incestuous relationship. Some scholars believe that this was indeed the case and that royal marriages between brothers and sisters were consummated and children born. Others, however, have argued that the "marriage" was ceremonial and that there is no evidence of sexual relations between the queen and the pharaoh.
Certainly part of the problem from our standpoint is a proper understanding of what constituted "marriage" in Ancient Egypt and what was meant by the term "wife", or "husband." In surviving formal documents and texts there is no mention of any religious or legal ceremony by which a man's relationship with a woman was formalised in marriage in the modern sense of cohabitation and sexual relations. In fact, "to marry" seems to have meant little more than "to enter a household."
Records show that pharaohs had several "wives" of different standing within the royal bloodline. It would appear to be also the case that an heiress-queen could both be "married" to the pharaoh and also be married and have children with another man, a consort-king. The children of the pharaoh and his wives, and the children of heiress-queen and her consort-king, would all refer to the pharaoh as "father" and the heiress-queen as "mother." Evidence of this is the way that the pharaoh is always the "son" of his predecessor, even though there may be no physical link.
I believe the evidence in support of the "heiress" theory outweighs that against it. Once adopted, it can be used to clarify much of the present confusion surrounding royal relationships, inheritance, and pharaonic succession, especially during the period of the Old Kingdom when the great pyramids were built at Giza, and when the statue of Menkaure and his queen was carved.
Power in Ancient Egypt descended through the mother's side of the royal family. The queenship was a mortal manifestation of female power and the feminine prototype, while the pharaoh represented the power of the male and the masculine prototype. The roles of the male pharaoh and the female queen were interpreted as one element in a system of complementary dualities. Many Egyptian stories and folktales revolve around the need to reconcile opposites. It was seen as necessary to maintain a balance between the male and the female. Men are more visible in the historical record because they served as the public manifestation of the power of the (female) throne and as the administrative head of the kingdom.
An heiress-queen may, or may not, be married to the pharaoh. If she was closely related by blood, her "marriage" to the pharaoh was ceremonial. Occasionally, however, she would "marry" and establish as the new pharaoh a man from outside the royal family, which brought about the founding of a new dynasty and introduced new blood into the royal bloodline. Men in the royal family, though, had certain claims to the throne by right of birth and kinship to the heiress-queen who may be their mother, step-mother, sister, half-sister, or niece. But none of the pharaoh's own children would automatically be his "heir." Inheritance resided in the female progeny of the heiress-queen. http://witcombe.sbc.edu/menkaure/menkaurequeen.htmlPosts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kaiser: ^ Disgusting idea. The woman is no longer your wife if other men are piping her lol she's just everybody's girl at that point let's not fool ourselves
Is a woman ever ''yours''? It appears you are fooling yourself, yourself.
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty: ^ Yes, well I personally don't like the idea but that's what happened in some cultures apparently. But interestingly enough in those same cultures or many other cultures there is no notion of 'ownership' or possesion of a wife or any woman for that matter no more than there is of a man just because he is married. And if a man sleeps around with many women he's not considered by women to be "everybody's boy".
Co-sign, Perhaps the ''normalness'' of this idea wouldn't feel ''off beat'' if our own ideas weren't so different. I'm sure there are benefits to a lot of practices we call odd, like for example the Nilotic habit drinking the blood of a cow has proven to be a healthy immune-system improving habit.
quote: A common assumption has been that the queen is Menkaure's wife, and that the position she occupies in the sculpture shows that she is subordinate to the pharaoh. Her more relaxed, naturalistic pose, the fact that her left foot does not extend as far forward as Menkaure's, the less rigid position of her arms, her open hands compared to his clenched fists, are believed to indicate her inferior rank within the rigorously hierarchic social organization of Egypt.
Someone who acts relaxed around a king, thought of as being a god in the flesh, regardless of culture, is NOT in a lower social status position. A less rigid, more relaxed posture clearly is NOT associated in any culture with lower social status. It's psychologically next to impossible to be or act relaxed and be around a king if you see yourself as a low status person.
In my opinion, the pose was a masculine one, there was no reason why she should have had a posture like that. Besides, standing with spread legs and taking up space is a masculine posture, women tend to stand with their legs closer together.
posted
^Why not argue that the fact that she wasn't depicted as a midget next to the king is indicative of her high status?
People depicted as midgets next to the pharao, note the obvious hierarchy of the people with highest to the people with the lowest status. Narmer the biggest, his vizier/sandal carrier second largest, and other servants as midgets:
quote:Originally posted by Kaizen: It's a double-standard I believe men use to protect their legacy (their children).
A woman knows who her kids her, regardless of what her husband or sperm-donor is doing with his bits elsewhere. It's not so straightforward with men who have extra-horny wives. And since women are in such abundance and a man never really has to marry one, the compromise has to be made by the woman who wishes to be married to keep her legs closed to those whom she is not married to. I believe there is a place in society for women who like to sleep around (to put it pungently) but if they want to get married, they need to find a man who doesn't mind sharing his sacred space.
Correct. This double-standard is related to patrilineal societies where descent is reckoned from the man or father. In such societies, a man had to be certain that the children are his and since women are the vessels of birth, their sexuality had to be controlled in a certain way. Of course there are exceptions. For example in some patrilineal societies where polyandry is practiced, brothers may marry the same woman and since they are from the same family lineage paternity didn't matter. Wodaabe men, usually among first cousins practiced wife sharing and so did Masai and I think this was done between men who were more cohesive.
By the way, what you cited about Menkaure and his queen per the royal heiress theory was first discussed here.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The only Pharaoh "wife" that comes to mind, that had a hubby on the side, was under the "heiress" queen concept. Those who are not clear on what this means, should read on it. Understanding what is involved here, will remove confusion about Pharaohs letting their wives sleep around.
Correct. Though let me point also a downside to being a royal heiress-- you can't marry a foreigner. That itself was a double standard in that the pharaoh could marry a foreigner but the royal lady could not. This done to preserve the native blood lines of the pharaohs.
quote:What are the names of the specific ethnic groups at hand, and how did you come to learn of this about these groups?
Unfortunately I forgot the names, but I learned of them in a book I read about the customs of African royalty. I do on the other hand have a passage from a book about African kings that I will cite in this forum soon. It's very interesting because what it entails is the very concept of divine kingship itself and all that comes with it.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Someone who acts relaxed around a king, thought of as being a god in the flesh, regardless of culture, is NOT in a lower social status position. A less rigid, more relaxed posture clearly is NOT associated in any culture with lower social status. It's psychologically next to impossible to be or act relaxed and be around a king if you see yourself as a low status person.
Excellent point! I never thought of that before.
quote:In my opinion, the pose was a masculine one, there was no reason why she should have had a posture like that. Besides, standing with spread legs and taking up space is a masculine posture, women tend to stand with their legs closer together.
You are correct. The conventional style of a pharaoh striding with one foot forward and arms rigid with fists clenched is indeed a masculine posture conveying action and is even militaristic in nature. While the wife more relaxed with her hand on her husbands back or around his arm with an equally regal expression or even a look of satisfaction is more feminine conveys an expression of her appeasement.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kaizen: It's a double-standard I believe men use to protect their legacy (their children).
A woman knows who her kids her, regardless of what her husband or sperm-donor is doing with his bits elsewhere. It's not so straightforward with men who have extra-horny wives. And since women are in such abundance and a man never really has to marry one, the compromise has to be made by the woman who wishes to be married to keep her legs closed to those whom she is not married to. I believe there is a place in society for women who like to sleep around (to put it pungently) but if they want to get married, they need to find a man who doesn't mind sharing his sacred space.
Correct. This double-standard is related to patrilineal societies where descent is reckoned from the man or father. In such societies, a man had to be certain that the children are his and since women are the vessels of birth, their sexuality had to be controlled in a certain way.
I don't think this has more to do with a patrilineal society than it has to do with the simple fact that a regular man in his right mind (i.e. not talking about kings or any type of royalty) has no reason to marry a woman who will not give him exclusive rights to her vessels of birth.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kaisen: Kalonji I'm guessing you're a woman who doesn't like being owned.
Is my position so unusual to you that you think its so out of the blue that a man would take it, that you would suspect I'm a female for taking it?
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty: Correct. Though let me point also a downside to being a royal heiress-- you can't marry a foreigner. That itself was a double standard in that the pharaoh could marry a foreigner but the royal lady could not. This done to preserve the native blood lines of the pharaohs.
I can only think of one person who tried to do that, and they didn't live ''happily after''. Know about the story I'm referring to?
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty: You are correct. The conventional style of a pharaoh striding with one foot forward and arms rigid with fists clenched is indeed a masculine posture conveying action and is even militaristic in nature. While the wife more relaxed with her hand on her husbands back or around his arm with an equally regal expression or even a look of satisfaction is more feminine conveys an expression of her appeasement.
Co-sign, to even attempt to speculate on Menkaura's wife not posing in masculine positions because of a presumed lower social status is a serious blunder on the part of anyone who positions himself as a knowledgeable source.
quote: Originally posted by Kaisen: I don't think this has more to do with a patrilineal society than it has to do with the simple fact that a regular man in his right mind (i.e. not talking about kings or any type of royalty) has no reason to marry a woman who will not give him exclusive rights to her vessels of birth.
Then think again, 'cause ''exclusive rights'' are being shared right now, as we speak. People cheat, and have been doing so since time immemorial. Psychologist are estimating that a number in the vicinity of 10% of people aren't fathered by men who they think are their fathers. And they aren't even counting the childless extra-marital affairs, nor is non-marital cheating represented in that figure.
posted
^ I thought it was 1 in 4 (25%) children that are estimated to have been disenfranchised by their lying mothers. I guess things are getting better.
-------------------- Are we going somewhere or are you going to keep annoying me with your boring lectures professor-warrior?? Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I didn't just google up that statistic, I read it somewhere a while ago and Yes, most women ain't worth marrying
-------------------- Are we going somewhere or are you going to keep annoying me with your boring lectures professor-warrior?? Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kaisen: Most women ain't worth marrying
Co-sign, if you going to be with one for the rest of your life, better make sure you raise those standards..
1 in 4, any idea what that means? There are about 10 people in this topic. That means that the chances are someone who posted in this topic isn't raised by their biological father. Most people freak out when they hear those numbers, but this is just the beginning, there is alot more research that are even making the female researchers blush. Of course there are a lot of skeletons in the mens closet as well, but that falls in better ground because of the double standard.
quote: Originally posted by Kaisen: Most women ain't worth marrying
Co-sign, if you going to be with one for the rest of your life, better make sure you raise those standards..
Why would you, if you're a man, want to be with just one woman for the rest of your life? Don't be a ridiculous person. I don't just eat bananas, I eat strawberries, mangoes, grapes and kiwis too. I like variety and I sometimes want a dessert after a hearty meal Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: Why would you, if you're a man, want to be with just one woman for the rest of your life? Don't be a ridiculous person. I don't just eat bananas, I eat strawberries, mangoes, grapes and kiwis too. I like variety and I sometimes want a dessert after a hearty meal [Cool]
What I meant was, If you'll ever make that choice to marry a woman and be with her, being picky is crucial. I'm not talking about being with a woman for the rest of your life without knowing whats out there, I'm just saying that when you do marry, make sure she is the right one. Will save you alot of trouble, and money.. just ask Nas.
posted
For once I agree with you Kalonji, yes, one must be careful not to marry a troublesome wife(check..). Also, the time-honoured ancient advice of marrying a woman who KNEW the REAL you before you made any money or had any type of success that women might be interested in (check! ) is a must.
Second wives and concubines don't have to meet the above criteria as they only show up when you have something to offer them that most men don't have. This of course makes them more expendable Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: Also, the time-honoured ancient advice of marrying a woman who KNEW the REAL you before you made any money or had any type of success that women might be interested in (check! [Wink] ) is a must.
Guess I'm too late then, 'cause I'm moving in a pretty good direction and women aren't my priority right now at all
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: I don't just eat bananas, I eat strawberries, mangoes, grapes and kiwis too. I like variety and I sometimes want a dessert after a hearty meal
You are really funny, you know that? Do you have any visual examples of you being anywhere near, let alone enjoying those bananas, strawberries, mangoes, grapes, kiwi's and derserts? A myspace, or facebook account perhaps?
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: I don't just eat bananas, I eat strawberries, mangoes, grapes and kiwis too. I like variety and I sometimes want a dessert after a hearty meal
You are really funny, you know that? Do you have any visual examples of you being anywhere near, let alone enjoying those bananas, strawberries, mangoes, grapes, kiwi's and derserts? A myspace, or facebook account perhaps?
Kalonji
I don't really understand your comment. If you mean do I have a facebook/myspace account to PROVE if I have a bunch variety that I could call on at will....no not really, I'm a married man, I can't do that
And a responsible man too; I, like you, am in a point in my life where having desserts after my main meal have been, um, pretty much a fantasy for a while
No cars-flow, no time for fair play Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: I don't really understand your comment. If you mean do I have a facebook/myspace account to PROVE if I have a bunch variety that I could call on at will....no not really,
Ah, I thought I detected something that might be interpreted as bragging, so I was curious to see if you could back that up. See, some of my cousins were on a similar roll you were describing in you fruit metaphor, and usually, whatever they were jonkingly bragging about was reflected in their messenges or the lifestyle visable in their pictures on whatever networking site they were a part of.
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: I'm a married man, I can't do that [Big Grin] And a responsible man too; I, like you, am in a point in my life where having desserts after my main meal have been, um, pretty much a fantasy for a while [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
How should I interpret your juicy metaphor then? You wouldn't lie to me, would you? Ah man.. not right after we had our first agreement...
I was merely saying that I like women of all varieties and used fruits as a metaphor for my varied taste. I don't know why I'd want to prove that??
Kudos to your cousins but my days of actually messing about with fruits are long gone, thankfully they got rid of me last year during the fall
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ...and usually, whatever they were jonkingly bragging about was reflected in their messenges or the lifestyle visable in their pictures on whatever networking site they were a part of.
If they're married, I'm guessing they don't upload pics of their legacy of game...not especially if they've been married for 7 years or more
Also, if they happen to have been trapped in BOOT CAMP, as I actually have, for the past 12 months, I don't imagine they'd have any pics to upload, except perhaps for the one where fruits (I'm guessing they're not fruits themselves) stand behind them in the office making stupid noises Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: I was merely saying that I like women of all varieties and used fruits as a metaphor for my varied taste
Good, that means you didn't lie to me, and I can still cherish our one and only agreement so far.. wouldn't want to lose that!!
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: Also, if they happen to have been trapped in BOOT CAMP, as I actually have, for the past 12 months, I don't imagine they'd have any pics to upload, except perhaps for the one where fruits (I'm guessing they're not fruits themselves) stand behind them in the office making stupid noises
I hope not one of those bootcamps where they take you somewhere with a limited supply of females, and where the ones that are present are masculine? If so, I feel for ya.. I might not have them high in priority right now in order to stay focused, but I aint gonna lie, I don't think I could do too long without at least eye balling them or being in their well appreciated company.
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: (I'm guessing they're not fruits themselves)
If you mean fruits as in goofey? Yes they can get quite goofey sometimes.. Fruits as in whether I was referring to one of my female cousins? Nope, wouldn't even have let one of em on a roll like that, not with dudes like my nephews lurkin around on those websites
quote:Originally posted by Kaizen: I don't think this has more to do with a patrilineal society than it has to do with the simple fact that a regular man in his right mind (i.e. not talking about kings or any type of royalty) has no reason to marry a woman who will not give him exclusive rights to her vessels of birth.
Actually it has a lot to do with patrilineage. If descent is reckoned through the male, a man must know that his children (and especially sons) are his so that the inheritance is proper. In matrilineal societies this doesn't matter and if there is even any incentive for a woman to stay faithful it is only solely due to notion of love for the husband. Even in regions like the Middle East, there are ancient records which speak of a distant time where children took their clan or tribal name from their mothers and women could take as many lovers as she wanted.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I can only think of one person who tried to do that, and they didn't live ''happily after''. Know about the story I'm referring to?
No I don't. Are you referring to the attempt of Tut's widow Ankhsenamun to marry a Mitanni prince?
quote:Co-sign, to even attempt to speculate on Menkaura's wife not posing in masculine positions because of a presumed lower social status is a serious blunder on the part of anyone who positions himself as a knowledgeable source.
Indeed. This goes back to the foolish western notion that equal must mean same, and that anything attributed to a male but not attributed to a female must mean difference in status as well. LOL
By the way, can we guys get out of the whole social issue with infidelity and sexual rights and get back to actual topic of polygamy??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kalonji, why do I sense a patronising tone in your words? Don't get all ES-Gangsta on me, you keyboard warrior you j/k Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: In matrilineal societies this doesn't matter and if there is even any incentive for a woman to stay faithful it is only solely due to notion of love for the husband.
It just occured to me that there is no benefit whatsoever for men in a matrilineal "situation". Why any able-bodied properly-educated average guy who is more than capable of earning his daily bread (presuming he is, like most people, not an actual enemy of the state) want to give away his power to women is beyond me.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty: No I don't. Are you referring to the attempt of Tut's widow Ankhsenamun to marry a Mitanni prince?
Yes, I was.
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty: Indeed. This goes back to the foolish western notion that equal must mean same, and that anything attributed to a male but not attributed to a female must mean difference in status as well. LOL
Exactly, it comes from a deep underlying view that some people have, which is: the only difference between men and women is our reproductive organs. And that therefore, the queen should've have had a masculine pose, ''if she really was a queen with equal rights''. This view leaves two interpretation when she doesn't
1.She must've had lower social status 2.In ancient egypt women, and by extension, queens were not equal to men.
This view doesn't take social roles/customs into account, and that the different pose Menkaura's wife had in that sculpture, may have had as much to do with a lower societal appreciation of women as the common accepted notion that boys tend to play with cars and girls tend to play with dolls has to do with our appreciation of women. Imagine that in a few thousand years, someone unknown to our culture would evaluate a western sculpture that depicts a little girl playing with dolls and that that person would then start to speculate away about how girls must have had lower value because they didn't play with cars like boys depicted on other sculptures. I think people who look at ancient Egypt for approval or for justification of their roll/lifestyle/opinion should stop doing that, because it tends to lead to distorted conclusions. That goes for certain gay and femenistic people, but also for afrocentrics and eurocentrics.
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: Kalonji, why do I sense a patronising tone in your words?
That wasn't my intention, just joking..
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: Don't get all ES-Gangsta on me, you keyboard warrior you j/k
Lol, can't help it, that is my informal english in action
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty: By the way, can we guys get out of the whole social issue with infidelity and sexual rights and get back to actual topic of polygamy??
No problem, but I don't think there is much more to explore regarding polygamy in ancient Egypt specifically.
By the way, why do you guys think that there were no disabled children as a result of those brother-sister marriages? Or do you think the ancient Egyptians just hid them from the spotlight?
quote:Originally posted by Kaizen: It just occured to me that there is no benefit whatsoever for men in a matrilineal "situation". Why any able-bodied properly-educated average guy who is more than capable of earning his daily bread (presuming he is, like most people, not an actual enemy of the state) want to give away his power to women is beyond me.
Well matrlineage in it of itself is about familial lineage and kinship. There is a hypothesis that matrilineage may have been the original lineage system since it is much easier considering that maternity is more certain than paternity. As far as overall political or cultural systems, matrilineal societies usually are matrix cultures or what anthropologists used to call "matriarchal", but such societies don't entail men giving up all power to women but rather men and women sharing power harmoniously. Every individual regardless of sex has the right to not only earn daily bread but keep it.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Yes, I was.
Well in this case, the Mitanni prince was assassinated and Ankhesenamun was left with no one to marry except the chief adviser Ay, who was probably also her grandfather.
quote:Exactly, it comes from a deep underlying view that some people have, which is: the only difference between men and women is our reproductive organs. And that therefore, the queen should've have had a masculine pose, ''if she really was a queen with equal rights''. This view leaves two interpretation when she doesn't
1.She must've had lower social status 2.In ancient egypt women, and by extension, queens were not equal to men.
This view doesn't take social roles/customs into account, and that the different pose Menkaura's wife had in that sculpture, may have had as much to do with a lower societal appreciation of women as the common accepted notion that boys tend to play with cars and girls tend to play with dolls has to do with our appreciation of women. Imagine that in a few thousand years, someone unknown to our culture would evaluate a western sculpture that depicts a little girl playing with dolls and that that person would then start to speculate away about how girls must have had lower value because they didn't play with cars like boys depicted on other sculptures. I think people who look at ancient Egypt for approval or for justification of their roll/lifestyle/opinion should stop doing that, because it tends to lead to distorted conclusions. That goes for certain gay and femenistic people, but also for afrocentrics and eurocentrics.
Well differences between the sexes go deeper than just genitalia or other physical differences, but yes difference does not entail one set is better or worse than the other.
quote:No problem, but I don't think there is much more to explore regarding polygamy in ancient Egypt specifically.
By the way, why do you guys think that there were no disabled children as a result of those brother-sister marriages? Or do you think the ancient Egyptians just hid them from the spotlight?
Inbreeding or incest doesn't cause disability per say but it does cause a higher frequency of recessive traits in a family including genetic disorders. For example, Akhenaton is presumed to have Marfan's syndrome where the risks of passing to children is usually low, but since his son Tut (by Kiya) married his daughter Ankhesa (by Nefertiti) all his grandchildren through them inherited the disorder if we are to conclude through genetic tests of the still born fetuses in Tut's tomb.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way there is one specific thing to discuss about polygamy and that is the 'harem feuds' that were not uncommon.
The wives would fight over whose positions and more importantly the positions of their children would be higher. Usually the chief wife takes precedence, but wicked women in the harem could cause trouble. I remember reading a book about African folktales and I remember a couple involved conspiracies of wives in a royal harem against other wives and children. It automatically reminded me of this book below:
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) is a must.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic