do you think it's acceptable?
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Yes, if no one is being forced into it why not let people live their own lives,I am for governments and institutions leaving peoples private matters to themselves,providing no one is being adversely affected.
Posted by Gigantic (Member # 17311) on :
In a civilized country it is not needed for survival. However, if a man or woman wants to have two or more mates, it is their business.
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
I'm in 2 minds about the idea.
On the one hand, some women don't want to share their husband, and I can totally relate with them. I wouldn't want to share my wife either.
On the other hand, I can say for a fact that most men (including myself) cannot do monogamy. The fact is most men are polygamous anyway ("illigamy") whether their wife or girlfriend is aware of it or not.
I think women have greater capacity for monogamy than men do though this is becoming less of a truth in the world we live in where "TV MIND CONTROL" is turning many young girls into whores (in their hearts and minds) before the age of 10.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Ditto to wat Broda said.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: what do you think of polygamy
do you think it's acceptable?
Yes, itz sceptable. And, I would like to add you to my harem if ony you stop lieing... Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
Any man with just half a brain should know that the way forward is to stay single. Not because being single is inherently better but because the marriage institution (along with general consensus/opinions) as it currently is, is a stupid mess that many unsuspecting young adults fall into.
But there is something to be said for cultural conditioning.
Me personally, I will NEVER get married. Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
It is wrong and sinful, marriage is divinely limited to being one husband and one wife being together.
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
^ Says Who?
Posted by Stephie_ELH (Member # 16197) on :
I think that in certain circumstances it can work, but it has to have the consent and permission of all involved so that everyone has their physical, emotional and material needs met(including any kids that may come along)
As for the comments about most men being 'naturally' polygamous, all humans are programmed to find the fittest mates so that their offspring will be the strongest so would swap partners as 'better' ones come along. Historically for women it was BETTER to be polygamous as it meant that protection wasn't dependent on one male, so that if one was killed others would be there. This odd idea that women are naturally anything is wrong, it is societal imprinting.
The point of civilization is to channel all sorts of urges so that individual wants are balanced with society. Thus, for strong nuclear family units, monogamy is ideal. Also for tracing of ancestry, monogamy is ideal.
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephie_ELH: I think that in certain circumstances it can work, but it has to have the consent and permission of all involved so that everyone has their physical, emotional and material needs met(including any kids that may come along)
That's why a marriage is between adults. If a party is not happy in the relationship. He/she may leave.
quote:Originally posted by Stephie_ELH: As for the comments about most men being 'naturally' polygamous, all humans are programmed to find the fittest mates so that their offspring will be the strongest so would swap partners as 'better' ones come along. Historically for women it was BETTER to be polygamous as it meant that protection wasn't dependent on one male, so that if one was killed others would be there. This odd idea that women are naturally anything is wrong, it is societal imprinting.
Agreed that women are probably as naturally polygamous as men are. Certainly, they should have as much of a right to have multiple partners if they so wish. I don't agree that humans are programmed to find the "fittest" mate. I think it's more complicated than that. A lot of times it's about convenience. At other times it's simply about quantity (men think in terms of quantity) and at times it's about quality (some men think in terms of quality, but quantity is more important).
quote:Originally posted by Stephie_ELH: The point of civilization is to channel all sorts of urges so that individual wants are balanced with society. Thus, for strong nuclear family units, monogamy is ideal. Also for tracing of ancestry, monogamy is ideal.
Rubbish. Sexual matters should be private (even though unfortunately sometimes they're not) and no man cares for having his balls inspected or controlled by "civilisation". I think civilisation means knowing the boundaries of what is private and what is public. We seem to be losing touch with reality and decency with all the surveillance going on and it's very depressing (and a major turn off too).
Posted by OnRoad (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephie_ELH: Also for tracing of ancestry, monogamy is ideal.
What makes you think the average person cares about tracing their ancestry? Even those that do don't "adapt" their sexual behaviour for the lofty and vain goal of having ones children be able to trace themselves back to you
IN ANY CASE, science is used to trace ancestry. Back in the old days when monogamy was used to trace ancestry, it was still guess work since only a woman can ever be sure of her child. The bottom line is that a man has to rely on his wife/babymama to tell him the truth. He simply doesn't have the power to be as sure as she is.
Posted by Stephie_ELH (Member # 16197) on :
@BBB b fittest, I don't mean the simplistic definition that a lot of right wingers use when criticizing evolution. I meant 'fittest' in the context of passing on their genes, be that through good health, nurturing qualities or quantity. I also don't mean to imply that people think it through, much seems to be instinctive.
About civilization, don't get it mixed up with government. I didn't mean so much laws but moral codes and norms. No PERSON cares for being controlled, male or female. However, if society is to function, there has to be some sort of acceptable code of behavior so that individuals can interact with others without constant conflict. Sexual matters should be private but marriage is not only sexual, it is social. The institution of marriage dictates relationships way beyond husband and wife (i.e extended family, kids, social interactions of the partners with others)
Posted by OnRoad (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephie_ELH: The institution of marriage dictates relationships way beyond husband and wife (i.e extended family, kids, social interactions of the partners with others)
The institution of marriage is a vaguely defined contraption that turns out to be a trap for most people who get involved in it. Marriage "rules" vary depending on your society or religion so I wouldn't go as far as to say that it "dictates" anything. However, people tend to expect you change your social protocols when you get married. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
quote:Originally posted by OnRoad:
quote:Originally posted by Stephie_ELH: The institution of marriage dictates relationships way beyond husband and wife (i.e extended family, kids, social interactions of the partners with others)
The institution of marriage is a vaguely defined contraption that turns out to be a trap for most people who get involved in it. Marriage "rules" vary depending on your society or religion so I wouldn't go as far as to say that it "dictates" anything. However, people tend to expect you change your social protocols when you get married. Nothing wrong with that.
Exactly. And this is the reason why I would never consider marriage. Like many people these days I have a child and have a good relationship with my child's mother. We do home-schooling and I can see my child whenever I want. So we keep societal involvement to a minimum. The marriage institution has been corruputed by those who seek to break down families and I am avoiding that trap to keep my family sucker free.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE: I'm in 2 minds about the idea.
I too am at times cognitively dissonant over this matter.
When she wants me just for her and vice-versa, and i want the same surely i can understand her, right?
What if polygamy made so much more sense though? Should she put her feelings in the way of this? It may be that we naturally just sense that one-to-one is so the rightest way to go.
quote:BiGBANGBOOGIE typed: Rubbish. Sexual matters should be private (even though unfortunately sometimes they're not) and no man cares for having his balls inspected or controlled by "civilisation". I think civilisation means knowing the boundaries of what is private and what is public. We seem to be losing touch with reality and decency with all the surveillance going on and it's very depressing (and a major turn off too).
Co-sign !
quote:I think women have greater capacity for monogamy than men do though this is becoming less of a truth in the world we live in where "TV MIND CONTROL" is turning many young girls into whores (in their hearts and minds) before the age of 10.
My American cultural context in mind: i'm pro sex and the "Sexual Revolution" of the 60s is congruent with this for me.
While this is so, it is good for the girls (and anyone for that matter) to be conscious of what they're doing and trying to do. She may want *a* chil' at the moment; she on't need to be runnin roun wit J-rot wit ten diffin kids by eight diffin women at twenty.
Media Mind control has some impact on youths' collective psyche? I mean i've seen sour themes loom over kids that seemed to've more to do with their peers in general and maybe familiar adults as well. Potato tomata, i guess.
Looks like it's about your kids being fortified in seeing, knowing, being faster and more hip to things than unfortunates who remain succeptible to elements that may be in their worst interest..
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
WhatBox
quote:My American cultural context in mind: i'm pro sex and the "Sexual Revolution" of the 60s is congruent with this for me. While this is so, it is good for the girls (and anyone for that matter) to be conscious of what they're doing and trying to do. She may want *a* chil' at the moment; she on't need to be runnin roun wit J-rot wit ten diffin kids by eight diffin women at twenty. Media Mind control has some impact on youths' collective psyche? I mean i've seen sour themes loom over kids that seemed to've more to do with their peers in general and maybe familiar adults as well. Potato tomata, i guess. Looks like it's about your kids being fortified in seeing, knowing, being faster and more hip to things than unfortunates who remain succeptible to elements that may be in their worst interest..
For legal purposes the above could be avoided and essentially turning women into concubines and their off-springs into illegitimate bastards,the females in those relationships would be protected under the laws of marriage..on the other hand which man wants three or four women nagging them instead of one?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
It may not be the same as polygamy, but as it turns out, a substantial portion of the female population has kids with males other than the ones they lead everyone to believe is the father of their kids.
The figure of offspring who are duped to look to the wrong person for their paternal needs, is as much as a 15% in the West.
This behavior is speculated to have biological underpinnings. Seek up the specifics if you're open, the keyword is paternity fraud. While you're at it, look up the proposed correlation between testicle size and promiscuous behavior. The male segment of our population has a testicle size and corresponding sexual behavior that one would predict, given our intermediacy between the modest sized (genital area speaking), more monogamous Gorilla's, and hyper sexual, well equipped Chimps.
Again, just as in previous threads of similar nature, I see some funny responses above. I'll just say that societal beliefs about ''sin'', and unrestricted free will, simply doesn't apply anymore, whether you want to admit it or not. This is not to say that people should do as they please, and go harm others using biological drives as scapegoats. What I’m saying is that our modern conceptualizations of ourselves individually and on the level of our species is nothing but a fictive romanticization, albeit one that serves useful purposes, like the rest of our hindsight rationalizing behaviors that systematically keep us from seeing why we act the way we do.
Most researchers agree that, had said research entered the mainstream, it would require radical paradigm shifts in our entire structure of ''civilization'', in terms of not only how autonomous we are, but also that our current model of how people (ought to) function is so radically incompatible with scientific research, that philosophers are debating the catastrophic consequences the internalization of this new body of research will have, in terms of legal, political and social implications. The research uniformly shows that, beneath the superficial and faux layer that some call ''civilization'' to make themselves feel better, we have unconscious drives that strongly predispose us to certain behaviors. Behavior that will then get categorized, and chastized using whatever a given current arbitrary (and never absolute) model dictates as a fitting penalty.
All fail to take into account that biological mechanisms are at work behind the scenes. Useful for (keeping our current) order and structure, but a fictive story nonetheless.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: WhatBox
quote:My American cultural context in mind: i'm pro sex and the "Sexual Revolution" of the 60s is congruent with this for me. While this is so, it is good for the girls (and anyone for that matter) to be conscious of what they're doing and trying to do. She may want *a* chil' at the moment; she on't need to be runnin roun wit J-rot wit ten diffin kids by eight diffin women at twenty. Media Mind control has some impact on youths' collective psyche? I mean i've seen sour themes loom over kids that seemed to've more to do with their peers in general and maybe familiar adults as well. Potato tomata, i guess. Looks like it's about your kids being fortified in seeing, knowing, being faster and more hip to things than unfortunates who remain succeptible to elements that may be in their worst interest..
For legal purposes the above could be avoided and essentially turning women into concubines and their off-springs into illegitimate bastards,the females in those relationships would be protected under the laws of marriage..on the other hand which man wants three or four women nagging them instead of one?
Brada-Anasi, I don't mind the nagging part.
In bad times and good times..
I just focus on the up-side of the relationships.. Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
IRON LION Brada-Anasi, I don't mind the nagging part. In bad times and good times.. I just focus on the up-side of the relationships..
YEAH but! ah mean 4,5,6 o dem buggin di hell outta you?? man dats too much..and you betta mek sure dem no inna di same house.. Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: It may not be the same as polygamy, but as it turns out, a substantial portion of the female population has kids with males other than the ones they lead everyone to believe is the father of their kids.
The figure of offspring who are duped to look to the wrong person for their paternal needs, is as much as a 15% in the West.
This behavior is speculated to have biological underpinnings. Seek up the specifics if you're open, the keyword is paternity fraud. While you're at it, look up the proposed correlation between testicle size and promiscuous behavior. The male segment of our population has a testicle size and corresponding sexual behavior that one would predict, given our intermediacy between the modest sized (genital area speaking), more monogamous Gorilla's, and hyper sexual, well equipped Chimps.
Again, just as in previous threads of similar nature, I see some funny responses above. I'll just say that societal beliefs about ''sin'', and unrestricted free will, simply doesn't apply anymore, whether you want to admit it or not. This is not to say that people should do as they please, and go harm others using biological drives as scapegoats. What I’m saying is that our modern conceptualizations of ourselves individually and on the level of our species is nothing but a fictive romanticization, albeit one that serves useful purposes, like the rest of our hindsight rationalizing behaviors that systematically keep us from seeing why we act the way we do.
Most researchers agree that, had said research entered the mainstream, it would require radical paradigm shifts in our entire structure of ''civilization'', in terms of not only how autonomous we are, but also that our current model of how people (ought to) function is so radically incompatible with scientific research, that philosophers are debating the catastrophic consequences the internalization of this new body of research will have, in terms of legal, political and social implications. The research uniformly shows that, beneath the superficial and faux layer that some call ''civilization'' to make themselves feel better, we have unconscious drives that strongly predispose us to certain behaviors. Behavior that will then get categorized, and chastized using whatever a given current arbitrary (and never absolute) model dictates as a fitting penalty.
All fail to take into account that biological mechanisms are at work behind the scenes. Useful for (keeping our current) order and structure, but a fictive story nonetheless.
Agree for the most part but had a question about this: The research uniformly shows that, beneath the superficial and faux layer that some call ''civilization'' to make themselves feel better, we have unconscious drives that strongly predispose us to certain behaviors. Behavior that will then get categorized, and chastized using whatever a given current arbitrary (and never absolute) model dictates as a fitting penalty.
How would you define arbitrary? Are all these restrictions really arbitrary, or are they based on decades, even centuries of experience? Too often I have run into white feminists talking about "arbitrary" rules as regards Africa, such as say, the bride price or dowry paid to a girl's family when she gets married. Is it just something those backward Africans dreamed up or does it serve some needed function in their particular societies?
For example, some anthropologists have explained bride price in market terms, as payment made in exchange for the bride's family's loss of her labor and fertility within her kin group. The agreed bride price is generally intended to reflect the perceived value of the girl or young woman. Others see it as an indirect mechanism for redistribution of wealth in those particular societies.
And if say rules requiring nubile young women to not go about unescorted at night are in place is that something arbitrary or something put in place for very good reasons after years of painful experience?
I am not saying you are wrong in fingering customs that may be obsolete or carried on just for the sake of tradition or habit, nor am I endorsing a particular function (such as ensuring greedy elites get most of the resources), nor am I denying that some of these rules are oppressive- with no real connection to the claimed benefit, but at what point is something arbitrary versus fulfilling some key function of a particular society as a whole?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Given that polygamy is marriage not just hooking up, setting up legitimate households not focking around:
Polyandry -- nope; kids won't know who poppa is.
Polygyny -- yep, with caveats; man must be $$ able to provide each woman with her own separate and apart from co-wives' house, clothes, food, and fock.
It takes big $$$ to feed, clothe, and educate all the kids.
The only difference between a wife and concubine is the written marriage contract and divorce papers for wives but concubines can dissolve the union without divorce papers and requires no marrige contract. But understand a concubine is no chick on the side she's a minor wife with a reduced set of marital rights in exchange for her freedom to legally dissolve the union without resorting to the state.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: what do you think of polygamy
do you think it's acceptable?
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
The usual suspects Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:BangBangBoog: On the other hand, I can say for a fact that most men (including myself) cannot do monogamy. The fact is most men are polygamous anyway ("illigamy") whether their wife or girlfriend is aware of it or not.
Women seem better suited than men for monogamy.
What you say makes sense given that we have the uglier sex, women have the more attractive sex, we got more of the testosterone, dey got da goods.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: YEAH but! ah mean 4,5,6 o dem buggin di hell outta you?? man dats too much..and you betta mek sure dem no inna di same house..
ROFL.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
@ Zaharan
When I said "arbitrary" I was referring to the stories we as a species conjure up to explain away behaviors that we exhibit, both individually and as a species. To use your example, take someone who is raised in a culture wherein bride prices are part of local tradition. What are potential stories that could be used in the case where a given couple refuses to take the traditional route? They may take that behavior and blame it on their parent’s way of raising them, they may blame it on possession of metaphysical entities, they may view this couple as inherently dysfunctional, rotten apples that should be banned to prevent dilution of traditions among their youth etc.
Whatever model they use to explain the aforementioned behavior, it will result in consequences that are specific to whatever the model prescribes as appropriate, e.g., exorcism may follow in the case where metaphysical entities are invoked. None of these models even begin to explain what is going on, they only serve to protect and maintain themselves, and order among those who are subjected to it. Modern scientific revelations reveal that we essentially behave in ways that is in agreement with how we are biologically predisposed to behave, i.e., often times when we feel strongly about a particular option to behave, this choice is already made for us in the deeper regions of our brains. This is exactly why we come up with similar explanations on an individual level. It is because we have difficulty accepting that we’re not primarily in control, and that maintaining control requires continuous tedious effort. Anyway, I’m drifting off. If you’re interested, read ‘’change or die’’. It’s about patients who are confronted with the choice to change their unhealthy lifestyle or die within a couple of months. It is interesting to note that most people can’t change even if they KNOW they will DIE. I can already sense I’ve ruffled some conservative people’s feathers by talking about this. If that happened, just know that that was your models self protecting mechanisms at work. LOL
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: It is interesting to note that most people can’t change even if they KNOW they will DIE. I can already sense I’ve ruffled some conservative people’s feathers by talking about this. If that happened, just know that that was your models self protecting mechanisms at work. LOL
This is deep...
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox:
quote:BangBangBoog: On the other hand, I can say for a fact that most men (including myself) cannot do monogamy. The fact is most men are polygamous anyway ("illigamy") whether their wife or girlfriend is aware of it or not.
Women seem better suited than men for monogamy.
What you say makes sense given that we have the uglier sex, women have the more attractive sex, we got more of the testosterone, dey got da goods.
You're too deep for me sometimes.
I think I get the inverse thing with the testosterone and goods but hey, I'm probably just hallucinating as usual. *whistles* Posted by Peregrine (Member # 17741) on :
If one truly has unconditional love for their spouse why not give it a try, with it being that indivduals choice of course. Although I do think if one does participate in this it should be highly monitored for diseases and such.
I'm married to a good wife but she does come with a season of semi-crazy streaks that make me think really long about this commitment called "marriage" sometimes... sometimes my patience is not the best and I would rather not deal with her spells altogether if I had the option of avoiding them. here's where the notion of a 2nd/3rd wife would become paramount with some. lol
Many singles out there are already engaging in heavens knows what sorts of promiscuous relationships, many married men/women are already cheating (or at least harbor the feelings) so what's really the big deal here?
If the gay marriage can be legal surely so can polygamy. I say go for it, provided you can meet the basic needs of the parties involved.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
@BoogieBangBang:
that was just a spur of the moment thing, first thing i meant to say here really. My deepness must be a subconscious thing Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Yes, if no one is being forced into it why not let people live their own lives,I am for governments and institutions leaving peoples private matters to themselves,providing no one is being adversely affected.
That is what I think also.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Given that polygamy is marriage not just hooking up, setting up legitimate households not focking around:
Polyandry -- nope; kids won't know who poppa is.
Polygyny -- yep, with caveats; man must be $$ able to provide each woman with her own separate and apart from co-wives' house, clothes, food, and fock.
It takes big $$$ to feed, clothe, and educate all the kids.
The only difference between a wife and concubine is the written marriage contract and divorce papers for wives but concubines can dissolve the union without divorce papers and requires no marrige contract. But understand a concubine is no chick on the side she's a minor wife with a reduced set of marital rights in exchange for her freedom to legally dissolve the union without resorting to the state.
Takruri is correct. Though I should point out the original purpose of polygamy was about population control. Polygyny or one man marrying multiple wives ensures a high percentage of offspring are born. This is usually favored in environments with plentiful resources or at least where resources can be produced such as in agrarian centered societies. More children meant more hands to work the plantations or manage the livestock. The opposite of this would be polyandry where one woman is married to multiple husbands. In this case, fewer offspring are produced and there are less division or rationing of resources for these children they grow up. Monogamy has an intermediate affect, not as many offspring produced as polygyny though not as few as that produced by polyandry.
While it's true that polyandry the father is not known (though it wouldn't matter in matrilineal societies), there are patrilineal societies which practice it in areas where resources are limited such as in the mountains of Tibet. There fraternal polyandry is practiced where brothers of the same clan marry a single woman. Though paternity is not known, the children still belong the same clan since all the husbands are brothers. Furthermore, property and resources are not split.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: IRON LION Brada-Anasi, I don't mind the nagging part. In bad times and good times.. I just focus on the up-side of the relationships..
YEAH but! ah mean 4,5,6 o dem buggin di hell outta you?? man dats too much..and you betta mek sure dem no inna di same house..
kmrt......
dwbcl Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
@TruthAndRights
Please, could you let us know what does " dwbcl " mean?
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE: @TruthAndRights
Please, could you let us know what does " dwbcl " mean?
Thatz her manner of calling me:
The big bad stud!
I can help it if mi ah deh gals dem sugar...
IronLion
Posted by BiGBANGBOOGIE (Member # 18298) on :
^ Thanks but the question was to TruthAndRights.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Gigantic says:
''However, if a man or woman wants to have two or more mates, it is their business.''
Yeah! When one bitch gets a headache...or a backache...or her toenails hurt, then go to the next one.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
I guess the more wives you have the less problems. While 3 could be a big nagging problem, 83 could be OK. One man in Nigeria has just that number. And they all get along well. LOL! One good thing about Nigeria though, the women like to make and handle their own money. Takes a load off a man's mind.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
anyone for that matter) to be conscious of what they're doing and trying to do. She may want *a* chil' at the moment; she on't need to be runnin roun wit J-rot wit ten diffin kids by eight diffin women at twenty.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)