Discussion: The virtues of polygamy.

[Tac]

"Oh and women who dwell togather for a period of time tend to have that time of the month very close togather... imagine THAT. Just friggen kill me now please"

AHahahahah so true. Oh man that one sure is one powerful counterpoint.

Most polygamous societies in history have tended to have large families. Perhaps not by design, but "accidents" multiplied by 2 or more ladies.. having twins... eep!

[mrfish]

i think a man should only have one wife.

if you want some 'activity partners' that's ok but only if your wife's into it. also, they have to realize their place in the scheme of things.

the problem with more than one woman is that they always compete. too much problem.

[AKDejaVu]

Polygaming simply kicks ass.  I just haven't found a way to keep properly focussed on both games at once yet.

AKDejaVu

[Animal]

hehe, you act as if all women were the same..

[easymo]

The speed in which you will be driven mad, will be mathematically proportional to the number of wives/children you have.

[-lynx-]

a) Advantages of polygamy to participating women.
1. Financial security, child care.

b) Advantages of polygamy to a man.
1. Same as above.

c) Costs/disadvantages of polygamy to any participants.
1. none that I can see. Its the same as monogmany.

Tac unless you're being sarcastic here you need to go and re-sit Logic101 and Maths101:

a) one disposable income divided by more participants does not amount to financial security unless you counting savings on babysitters.
b) I want the lifestyle I want and am prepared to work for it. I do not want lifestyle I can afford. I want my partner to look nice and not balance "one pair of nice shoes between all of you or a pair of crappy ones each".
c) err... I think Logic101 is a must here with Maths101 following real close.

p.s. I have fulfilled my duty to humanity - I have reproduced;). Now please go away and stop telling me that instead of BMW Convertible, nice house, PPL and a share in a plane with nice holidays etc I need to have more children - I have parents in Russia to support.

[StSanta]

Miko, I think one important aspect you haven't included yet is that polygamy works both ways - i.e a woman can have multiple husbands as well.

This introduces the aspect of fatherhood - knowing who has fathered a child. From an evolutionary point of view: this is of little consequences for the mother. She wants the best genes for her child of course, but I am assuming that she's ensured that through properly selecting her husbands.

For the man, however, it is a major problem. the woman will ALWAYS know that the child she is carryying has half her genes. A man married to a woman with other husbands have no way of knowing except through having DNA samples taken and compared. Even so, there's a limit to how many children a woman can have, and how many children she wants to have. Propogating the genes of the male might be an issue.

The man will counter this by breeding with as many females as possible. There amount of offspring to a man will be proportional to his desiserability with women, assuming that the sperm is equally good. Thus, the desireable man will have a LOT of children carrying his genes, and with that, a lot of children to care for.

It is unrealistic to expect all men to care for a child which does not share at least part of his genes - in the wild, it's not uncommon for sisters/brothers to care for the Alpha male/females offsprin - but it is rarer to have a member of a species care for the offspring of an unrelated (DNA wise) member of the same species.

Jealousy also comes into the picture. My idea about why this feature is so prominently displayed in humans is that it makes sense in the propogation of one's genes. You keep yer female and make sure the child she carries have YOUR genes, and that the offspring is kept safe. Propogation of your genes doesn't stop with the birth of the offspring.

You could argue that even with this, the woman easily could marry your brother - he carries part of the same genetic makeup as you do.

But two sided polygamy hasn't worked very well with the human species. Experiments from the 60's and 70's, both in laboratories but also in real life, indicate that much. One sided polygamy seems to work better, and there's a number of cultures where it is found.

For me, I am egostistical. I would not mind having several women, but I'd NOT want to share my woman with anyone. 'my' might sound a bit possessive and should not be understood as ownership.

Then there are tons of legal issues. Introducing polygamy would result in a host of issues needing to be rewritten - inheritance laws, divorces, child caring etc. At least these are not very hard to get around.

I dunno. I like monogamy - as in a 1 to 1 relationship in marriages. Of course, this isn't really what happens in real life, there are lots of affairs, lovers and whatnot, but the basic idea in marriage for me should be monogamy, for psychological reasons. It seems to be a more stable configuration: less units means less things that can break down. Adults can deal with things breaking down: children have a harder time.

Am not sure I mean much of what I've said, but they're at least ideas.

[StSanta]

As to the other points:

a) Advantages of polygamy to participating women.
1. Woman does not have to settle for a second-rate male as a husband and a father of her children because the best ones are taken. Desirable men often display wilingness to have more then one woman in their lives, so that is not a problem.

Seems true enough to me.

Woman can excercise more discretion over selection of a father and an environment to grow her children and a choice is usualy a good thing.

Seems like an extention of #1

2. Woman gets a more stable/lasting marriage - if she does not entirely satisfy her husband in some respect, he is much less likely to dump in favor of another woman. Even a woman is infertile, she may be a valuable and happy member of a family.

With more options, the man will turn to whatever woman best satisfies his particular need. The corresponding need will therefore potentially not be met in the woman. There's loss of reciprocity, which might lead to more dissent and disagreement - something that might lead to a less stability in the marriage. Indeed: why should the woman settle for one man, when several would be better? Assuming a two way polygamous system, it is possible that all her needs will be met, but by different men. It is also conceivable that this is not enough: the woman is not a mere set of functions that want a specific return type: perhaps the object that returns the requested data must be a specific one.
                       

3. Besides being fathered by a more desirable man, woman's children are likely to benefit in life from having more siblings.

This doesn't need to be a benefit. More siblings means that the father has to spread out his resources more - meaning less to each kid. In-family quarrels might increase as well - not all siblings get along or even love each other.

Raises the possibility of first and second rate half siblings - from 'best' father to 'less good' father.

4. Children receive better care. (Tac)
More motherly resources, if the women of the family agree to share the workload. This might or might not be the case, depending on each individual. I suspect in the case where a woman has NOT a child of her own, whereas the rest do, she'd have less of a reason to help out - she is not propogating her genes, after all.

Also, assuming all the women get an equal amount of children, the workload will be much higher. Assuming each person has has 1 PersonPower, the following is true.

PersonPower: the amount of time, energy and other resources each person (man or woman has).

Assumption: each woman get 2 kids (stable population growth)

PersonPower per kid (PPK): (m+w)/(w*2)
where m = number of men
w = number of women

1 man + 1 woman:
PPK: (1*1 + 1*1)/( 1*2) = 1.

1 man + 5 women:
PPK: (1*1)+(5*1)/(2*5) = 0.6

Which means that a kid will have 40% less human resources available. Of course, not entirely true: one woman could make a meal for 6 children or wash for 6, no problem, and so forth. Then again: get a maid, no need for polygamy. Not true for exclusive time with both parents.

b) Advantages of polygamy to a man.
1. Having more children.
2. Having more stable marriage, smaller temptation to switch partners - same as a woman.
3. Children receive better care - same as for a woman.

Agreed on #1 - more children with more women means better spread of genes.
Questionable on #2 - might lead to dissent and arugments amongst the women, who then might opt outta the marriage.
#3: false: this is based on the assumption that some women will not have children, which is clearly against their will, since that'll mean no propogation of their genes, unless the other wives are blood related.

c) Costs/disadvantages of polygamy to any participants.
1. Less sex per woman?

Assuming one man, true. Doesn't stop there though: less *everything* for the woman. Less sex, less exclusive time with man, etc etc. Whole range of emotional issues that's too big to fit here.

d) Advantages of polygamy to society.
1. Children grow up in more suitable environments. If more then one woman is willing to join a marriage, there must be something good about it.

Fathers-time-per-offspring lowers. In a 1-to1 relationship wife/husband, increasing the number of children by 1 has a lesser effect than increasing the number of kids per woman would in a family with 1 husband, 5 wives.

2. Healthier, smarter children - for both genetical and nurturing reasons - following from better woman's choice.

Depends on the selection criteria of the woman . Intelligence is not guaranteed (although health probably is a universal deseriabe trait) since some women like that: others go for humor, or muscles. What's true is that the woman will be able to get the best of whatever criterion she selects with.

3. May encourage having fewer children per women which helps if overpopulation is an issue.

Based on the assumption that some women gives up propogating their own genes.  From an evolutionary point of view: this is stupid. From my own personal point of view: if a woman can have a child of her own, she'd rather have that than anything else. And, population growth is not a problem in industrialized countries: DK has a population growth that dips into the negative at times.

e) Disadvantages of polygamy to society.
1. Surplus of males which can create some social tensions.
2. Tac: May encourage larger families which is a problem if overpopulation is present.
3. Sligh reduction in genetic diversity

#1 is a HUGE problem. Men will seek to propogate their species (unconsciously perhaps, but this is what is one of the causes anyhow) through ANY means possible. Assuming that humans are rational about this is perhaps to be a bit too idealistic.
#2: assuming that each woman gives birth to the same number of children, the population number will be the same even in a polygamous society. The difference will be that there'll be less families, but of greater size.
#3: might be more than 'slight', depending on the number of women each desireable man has. If a man has 6 women, there'll be 12 offspring with half the man's DNA. In the case of a 1-to-1 relationship: 2. Give it a little time, and the genetic diversity will really be affected: the distribution of genes will be affected quite much.

This is fun .

[miko2d]

Daff: Hmm what about the opposite?..a woman having several husbands?
StSanta: Miko, I think one important aspect you haven't included yet is that polygamy works both ways - i.e a woman can have multiple husbands as well.
 That is called polyandry and is definitely not what I am discussing here.
 What would be the point? A woman would have more but not many more children then she woudl otherwise (due to better financial support) while each husband would have considerably fewer children, often none - how would you control equal distribution of progeny?
 If such a women proves (or becomes) barren, that spells disaster for the whole family and no chance for her to have one - and women much more often are/become infertile then men.
 Polyandry did exist in many societies but only due to serious external pressures - social/economic/cultural.

 Polygamy is different because fewer men are needed to produce the same number of children and excess always creates an opportunity for selection.

 Why would any sane man want more than one wife? The idea is to have the bare minimum of wives and as many mistresses as feasable.
 Children of course. Genes that encourage sex without children tend to self-eliminate from the gene-pool.
 Having more children of more diverse genetic background is a huge insentive for an individual with strong drive to procreate.

 mrfish: he problem with more than one woman is that they always compete
 So do husband and wife. In fact competition between sexes is a recognised fact of biology.
 A competing environment consisting of three or more people may be more stable then a pair. Three is a very stable number for a company of humans since it tends to ameliorate contradictions between any two members but does not split into parts. So a husband and two or three wives would be very stable arrangement.

 -lynx-: one disposable income divided by more participants does not amount to financial security unless you counting savings on babysitters
 Who said about one disposable income? I am talking about polygamy in US. Most married woman in US do work. The savings come from smaller number of husbands they have to support, and pooling of incomes which reduces risk of having no income at all in case of a job loss.
 Savings on household expences, babysitters etc are an additional bonus.
 Unless of course the husband is so disproportionately wealthy that wive's income does not matter and then there is really less money per wife if there are more of them. But if he is so wealthy, he would not have to choose between "one pair of nice shoes or crappy shoes for each".
 
 I have fulfilled my duty to humanity... Now please go away and stop telling me that instead of BMW Convertible... I need to have more children
 Who the heck told you that? The fewer children you have, the more room for those who want children. So please go ahead, have a vasectomy and buy an extra trinket!

StSanta: With more options, the man will turn to whatever woman best satisfies his particular need. The corresponding need will therefore potentially not be met in the woman. There's loss of reciprocity, which might lead to more dissent and disagreement - something that might lead to a less stability in the marriage.
 A man may want a woman who is a good housemaker, a smart women who would manage a family, a nymphomaniac, a fertile healthy woman, etc. Abcense of one of those features may cause strain but if a combination of women have them, the need (of the whole family - not just the man) is satisfied and no tensions need arise. Obviously a smart man would not marry two incompatible women. He would be better marrying woman who complement each other, preferably who were friends to start with. In fact adding a new member to the family would be decided by wives as much as the husband - so he is likely to be in minority. Again I am speaking about US or similar country where women are not considered cattle.

 Indeed: why should the woman settle for one man, when several would be better?
 As I said earlier, huge difference in costs. Women with 1/2 a husband has same number of children or more.
 A husband with 1/2 of a wife has fewer or none children.

 There is a huge difference in sexes originating from different investment in progeny which determines different behavior.  There are many implications on the optimal strategy for each sex. Polygamy is often seen in nature. Polyandry is a rare exception in species very unlike our own - like insects with a single queen. Usually only one male has children by one female at a time.

 In-family quarrels might increase as well - not all siblings get along or even love each other.
 In the conditions of abundance, the importance of family ties is lower. But in harsher conditions family and clan is of utmost importance  and has been for millenia.

if the women of the family agree to share the workload. This might or might not be the case, depending on each individual...
 Why would they become a family otehrwise?
 Some women tend to childcare while others make big bucks in demanding careers. With more of them natural talents of each can be better exploited without sacrificing child bearing capacity by the smartest and most capable ones.
 The family means teh agreement to share the workload - that is the difinition of marriage.
 A maid is not the same as a woman raising an adopted child from day one to adulthood. Besides, to the child there will be no emotional difference between the biological mother and the rest of them - that ought to make a difference in women's attitude.

 My assumption that children will receive better care with more women in the house is not because some will not have children but because there will more likely be someone from the family around the house.

Less sex, less exclusive time with man, etc etc.
 Two much time spent together is one of the most common reasons for breakups and family problems. Males and females are different and need their time apart.

 an evolutionary point of view: this is stupid...
 Women do not have an evolutionary-minded computer in their heads. Women usually have no problem applying their maternal instincts towards other woman's children.

assuming that each woman gives birth to the same number of children, the population number will be the same even in a polygamous society.
 But why should he? Having a better husband, bigger family and guaranteed help in childcare she may opt for more if she is so inclined.

might be more than 'slight', depending on the number of women each desireable man has. If a man has 6 women
 That number is a bit too much. Of course some man may amass huge harems but in general as more male children are born from healthier (including alcoholism, mental stability etc.) fathers in better environments, they will in turn become more desirable husbands and many women will be likely to chose them in return for being "the only" wife. So there will be a balance. I would say that average of 1-2 women per man is more reasonable ratio for the long term.

 miko

[StSanta]

From http://www.dict.org:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Polygamy \Po*lyg"a*my\, n. [Gr. ?; cf. F. polygamie.]
1. The having of a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; usually, the marriage of a man to more than one woman, or the practice of having several wives, at the same time; -- opposed to monogamy; as, the nations of the East practiced polygamy. See the Note under Bigamy, and cf. Polyandry.
 
2. (Zo["o]l.) The state or habit of having more than one
        mate.
 
3. (Bot.) The condition or state of a plant which bears both perfect and unisexual flowers.

This would indicate that polygamy refers to both genders, not just the male.

As to the rest of the points:



StSanta: With more options, the man will turn to whatever woman best satisfies his particular need. The corrresponding need will therefore potentially not be met in the woman. There's loss of reciprocity, which might lead to more dissent and disagreement - something that might lead to a less stability in the marriage.

Miko:
A man may want a woman who is a good housemaker, a smart women who would manage a family, a nymphomaniac, a fertile healthy woman, etc. Abcense of one of those features may cause strain but if a combination of women have them, the need (of the whole family - not just the man) is satisfied and no tensions  need arise. Obviously a smart man would not marry two incompatible women. He would be better marrying woman who complement each other, preferably who were friends to start with. In fact adding a new member to the family would be decided by wives as much as the husband - so he is likely to be in minority. Again I am speaking about US or similar country where women are not considered cattle.

All good and well for the male. Consider the instance where the man prefers one wife in bed because she's much prettier/better in bed than his others. This need would then not be fulfilled for the others, at least not in an acceptable manner. Consider the man who goes to one woman for comfort: same thing. Consider ALL such needs, and all of a sudden polygamy doesn't sound like that good an idea.

As I said earlier, huge difference in costs. Women with 1/2 a husband has same number of children or more. A husband with 1/2 of a wife has fewer or none children. There is a huge difference in sexes originating from different investment in progeny which determines different  behavior. There are many implications on the optimal strategy for each sex. Polygamy is often seen in nature. Polyandry is a rare exception in species very unlike our own - like insects with a single queen. Usually only one male has children by one female at a time.

Women with 2 or more husbands also has the same number of children. If reasonable limits are put on the number of husbands a woman can have, she can easily produce one offspring for each during her fertile period. These will then have the financial support of a lot of fathers. The definition of polygamy seems to indicate that the term covers cases both for women and men at the same time, whereas polyandry just for women. If my interpretation of the definition I've posted is correct, that is.

I wrote:
In-family quarrels might increase as well - not all siblings get along or even love each other.

Miko:
In the conditions of abundance, the importance of family ties is lower. But in harsher conditions family and clan is of utmost importance and has been for millenia.

In all kinds of situations, family ties can go sour. Hardship is not a guarantee of a family becoming more accepting of each other. Some would indicate the opposite.

I wrote:
if the women of the family agree to share the workload. This might or might not be the case, depending on each individual...
           
Why would they become a family otehrwise?
Some women tend to childcare while others make big bucks in demanding careers. With more of them natural talents of each can be better exploited without sacrificing child bearing capacity by the smartest and most capable ones. The family means teh agreement to share the workload - that is the difinition of marriage.

'Marriage' doesn't include anything about sharing of workload in its definition. It's been along a lot longer than equality. Marriage can be seen as a legal contract between husband and wife and between the two and society. A legal union between man/men and woman/women.n 1: state of being husband and wife.

A woman can marry for other reasons than being 'part of the family'. You marry a man and a girl, and you marry that person: you do not marry his mother, his father, and his siblings. There's a variety of reasons the woman can marry that are unrelated with an intention to share the workload: love of the man, wanting the best genes for her offspring, financial security, good bed partner, you name it. Unless previously agreed, there's absolutely nothing that includes sharing of workload with others who are married to the man. They might even live apart.
                           
A maid is not the same as a woman raising an adopted child from day one to adulthood. Besides, to the child there will be no emotional difference between the biological mother and the rest of them - that ought to make a difference in women's attitude.

I was talking about the calculation of PersonPower per Child there - i.e doing the laundry/making food can be done by a maid: no need for polygamy for that reason.

My assumption that children will receive better care with more women in the house is not because some will not have children but because there will more likely be someone from the family around the house.

True, but in PPC shows, the actual human resources each child have available are less in a polygamous family with 1 man and several wives than in a standard monogamous relationship - in the case of 5 wives, about 40% less.

I said:
Less sex, less exclusive time with man, etc etc.

Miko:
Two much time spent together is one of the most common reasons for breakups and family problems. Males and females are different and need their time apart.

Too *little* time together, quality one on one time, is also one of the most common reasons for breakups and family problems. While males and females are different in many ways, we do want time with our partner. The male in this case might get his social marital needs satisfied by being around his many wives, each in turn, but the women might not.

[n]
an evolutionary point of view: this is stupid...
Women do not have an evolutionary-minded computer in their heads. Women usually have no problem applying their maternal instincts towards other woman's children.[/b]

Stupid? Women want children for a reason. It's not just their rational part that says "we need to propogate the species. therefore, the rational conclusion is that I need to give birth to 2 children, or someone else need to compensate for me". No, they want it, and there's a reason for it. Call it stupid or not, humans are driven with desires that cannot be attributed to the rational mind alone.

If you'd ask a woman to give up her desire to have a baby of her own so she can take care of the children of others, I bet that in 25-50% of the cases, there'll either be REALLY big resentment and anger from it, or downright refusal. The argument from evolution is just to illustrate where we come from: and we need to know our history to understand the present. Like it or not, we're not totally rational beings.

I wrote:
assuming that each woman gives birth to the same number of children, the population number will be the same even in a polygamous society.

Miko:
But why should he? Having a better husband, bigger family and guaranteed help in childcare she may opt for more if she is so inclined.

Well, nwo YOU are using the argument from evolution. I'll counter with your own argument, so at least you'll have to admit one of the two are wrong . I could do that, or I could continue the argument: Women aren't necessarily interested in getting a huge number of offspring from a good mate: A small number reared properly might be more beneficial in the long run.

I wrote:
might be more than 'slight', depending on the number of women each desireable man has. If a man has 6 women

That number is a bit too much. Of course some man may amass huge harems but in general as more male children are born from healthier (including alcoholism, mental stability etc.) fathers in better environments, they will in turn become more desirable husbands and many women will be likely to chose them in return for being "the only" wife.
So there will be a balance. I would say that average of 1-2 women per man is more reasonable ratio for the long term.

That ratio is certainly more acceptable, yet it is not unusal for men in a polygamous relationship to have 4 or 5 wives. And, as you say, since the offspring of these fathers have better genes, they'll be the ones to mate with more. And their descendants in turn. Over time, the gene pool is reduced quite much.

Interesting discussion. I bet, however, if we include a few of the more vocal women, they'd call this 'sexism' since we're talking about letting the man get the goodies of having many wives, potential sex partners, and many to choose from in the marriage to fulfill his particular needs, whereas the woman has to do good with whatever time she can wrestle from the shared man. This is particularly true if she married the man for his good genes alone: He might be a terrible lover, have a bad financial situations (even smart people do make stupid mistakes) or a host of other things.

Open it up for both genders and the situation becomes much more complex, but also much more interesting.

I doubt male jealosy would tolerate too much of that though .

[miko2d]

Sorry on Polygamy confusion, StSanta - I ment polygyny as opposed to polyandry.

 StSanta: All good and well for the male. Consider the instance where the man prefers one wife.... This need would then not be fulfilled for the others, at least not in an acceptable manner. Consider the man who goes to one woman for comfort: same thing. Consider ALL such needs, and all of a sudden polygamy doesn't sound like that good an idea.
 Likewise consider the instance of all the rest of the women not married to that particular man who wish they were - he does not fulfill their needs either even though he could - more or less satisfactory. Where is our sympathy to those?
 If some needs are not fulfilled in an acceptable manner, a woman would not be in the marriage or would get a divorce.

True, but in PPC shows, the actual human resources each child have available are less in a polygamous family with 1 man and several wives than in a standard monogamous relationship - in the case of 5 wives, about 40% less.
 In reality it is very difficut to proportionately allocate time to children - part time work is incompatible with serious career. You cannot assume that man always equally shares the burden. In fact most of the time man is part of the burden as far as domestic life is concerned. Supposedly his income comes in handy.


StSanta: "Based on the assumption that some women gives up propogating their own genes. From an evolutionary point of view: this is stupid..."
Me: "Women do not have an evolutionary-minded computer in their heads..."
StSanta: "Stupid? Women want children for a reason..."

 ????? I never uttered a word "stupid" in this thread. I quoted your post (unless someone posted under your name).
 That is why it is in bold font in my post - as an opponent's quote. My own replies are usually in plain font.

Now to the point:
 Many women are perfectly fine helping others raise their children alongside of or instead of their own - if they are not able to have their own. Many women do not care much about having or raising their own children. Here is a perfect opportunity for a man to do some creative mixing and matching.
 Quite often in my experience a most desirable women to have children with - healty and highly intelligent - is way too busy with her career to bother having many. It is easier to find a nice cosy girl with IQ of <100 who would be happy to stay home and make babies by the dosen, but why would you want to?
 Marrying a smart one would ensure that you have very few kids who do not get adequate care while the dummer one would have to marry some male not as good as you.
 Combining both would offer an obvious benefit to everyone involved - except for the would-be husband of the #2 wife.

 Alternative strategy is to find an accomplished woman and persuade her to give up her carreer in favor of having children but the mental conditioning is too strong. They realise the truth often too late in their life.

 But I never implied that a women would have to sacrifice having her own children in order to care for others - you somehow made that conclusion.
 Also, I did not use any arguments from evolution - again, you have to sort out which of the statements/conclusions are yours .

 If it comes to evolution, having a family is an evolutionary adaptation and kin selection is common not only in humans but in other animals. So being family must be better then being strangers as far as siblings are concerned.
 It would be strange if it were not - you are as related to your full sibling as you are to your children. Genetically there is no difference. Older siblings often help parents with the younger ones in many species of animals. A gene for saving a brother is as likely to increase in frequency as a gene for saving a child.
 Obviously in some specied you may not be sure if teh sibling is you full or half brother and in some species siblings are more closely related to an individual then offsprings with appropriate concequences for behaviour. But I digress...

 XIt is a surprise to me that someone would consider siblings relationships in humans as less advantageous then strangers to any considerable degree - is that reflection from your personal experience or otherwise? Barring few freak examples I read about, I see brotherly/sisterly love all around me.

 Consider blacks in US - 1/3 of the eligible males are in jail or on parole - due to our stupid "war on drugs", etc. The remaining 2/3ds often have their problems too. At the same time there is a huge number of incredibly lovely, educated, hard working proffessional black (all shades) woman who have no hope of getting a husband. Their lot would be much better if they could flock to those successfull black (or other) men instead of staying alone or ruining their lives with some low-life.
 I bet that a prospect of not getting a wife would be a huge insentive for every man to stay in school and out of jail!

...since we're talking about letting the man get the goodies of having many wives
 Plus the responcibilities of course - married sex is the most expencive kind there is if you only interested in sex.

...whereas the woman has to do good with whatever time she can wrestle from the shared man.
 She can have a man of her choice, a career and a children who would be cared for.
 Since the whole thing is based on choice, no woman can object.  No one makes her join. Those staying out of polyginous marriages would have wider choice of males as a free benefit.
In fact, no one prevents any woman to assemble a harem of men from the surplus.

Interesting discussion. I bet, however, if we include a few of the more vocal women, they'd call this 'sexism'...
Open it up for both genders and the situation becomes much more complex, but also much more interesting.
 They are welcome to talk about whatevet tickles their fancy.
 Personally I am not interested in discussing polyandric relationships but by no means do I oppose it - if some women attract more then one men, more women are left for the rest of us!

 miko

[Elfenwolf]

Personally I believe the phrase "happily married" is an oximoron. How could any of you people  even consider having TWICE as many women thinking up "Honey-Do" lists? Who wants to go through the humiliation of having several women talk about your "shortcomings" in bed? Who could afford the Nordstrom and Macy's bills? Who wants more than one mother-in-law?? I'm on my third wife now, and thank God I got rid of the previous one before I brought the next one home.
I never even knew what true happiness was  until I got married, and then it was too late. VERY bad idea. The fact some of you would consider polygamy makes me glad it is illegal- it's for your own good.

Sheeesh, some of you scare me,
Elfenwolf

[StSanta]

Heheh, I mess up definitions all the time .

This is a good discussion Miko. I'll try to address the points you've made. I should say that I argue just for the sake of the argument, but still, the stuff is debatable.


StSanta: All good and well for the male. Consider the instance where the man prefers one wife.... This need would then not be fulfilled for the others, at least not in an acceptable manner. Consider the man who goes to one woman for comfort: same thing. Consider ALL such needs, and all of a sudden polygamy doesn't sound like that good an idea.

Miko:
Likewise consider the instance of all the rest of the women not married to that particular man who wish they were - he does not fulfill their needs either even though he could - more or less satisfactory. Where is our sympathy to those?

Well, then there's the issue if they can find a man that *adequately* can satisfy *all* their needs, rather than having a man that can partly satisfy *some* of their needs better than the other man.

In other words, they might seek the man for his bedtime manners. This desireable man is fantastic in bed. The woman gets 4 orgasms every time she sleeps with him. Unfortunately, that is only once every week, or once every two week - more and the poor man would be exhausted just from sleeping with his wives.

the other bloke isn't quite as good - sex gives her an orgasm in 50% of the cases. On the other hand, he's readily available every day. Not only does she get more orgasms: she gets to have sex at the rate which she needs. In essence, we're not depriving the women of having their needs met by having a monogamous society. That might not mean their needs get met, *and then some*, but their needs still get met, and arguably at a higher 'hit rate'.




Miko:
In reality it is very difficut to proportionately allocate time to children - part time work is incompatible with serious career. You cannot assume that man always equally shares the burden. In fact most of the time man is part of the burden as far as domestic life is concerned. Supposedly his income comes in handy.

Hm, I think perhaps we're working under different assumptions here. My assumption is that there's equality at the same rate as in Denmark today - that is, women are almost just as likely to go for a career even if they have children as men are. I.e the whole idea about housewives is expanded to include house-husbands. It all depends on the criteria the woman used for selecting her mate - perhaps supporting the family financially, which traditionally has been the male role, isn't the most important criterion. It might just as well be that he's good with children.

I agree that it's hard to put up an equation with regards to how much time is available for kids, but one can deduct as much as to say 'the less parents, the less potential time they have with the offspring'.


 StSanta: "Based on the assumption that some women gives up propogating their own genes. From an
evolutionary point of view: this is stupid..."
Me: "Women do not have an evolutionary-minded computer in their heads..."
StSanta: "Stupid? Women want children for a reason..."

Miko:
????? I never uttered a word "stupid" in this thread. I quoted your post (unless someone posted under your name).
That is why it is in bold font in my post - as an opponent's quote. My own replies are usually in plain font.

Mea culpa. The thing is, I read as I reply, and thus bold isn't that visible. I erred here. Thought it odd you'd call me stupid. Sorry about that. .

Miko:
Now to the point:
Many women are perfectly fine helping others raise their children alongside of or instead of their own - if they are not able to have their own. Many women do not care much about having or raising their own children. Here is a perfect opportunity for a man to do some creative mixing and matching.

Agreed. If the case is that the woman cannot have a child of her own, it makes sense. If the woman *can* have a child of her own, the equation is different. There are two ways a woman can not have children: a) the discussion is imposed upon the woman by way of agreement between her, the man and other wives, and b) biologically, it is impossible for her. The case is certainly true for b), but with a) it's a whole different ballgame.

Miko:
Quite often in my experience a most desirable women to have children with - healty and highly intelligent - is way too busy with her career to bother having many. It is easier to find a nice cosy girl with IQ of <100 who would be happy to stay home and make babies by the dosen, but why would you want to?
Marrying a smart one would ensure that you have very few kids who do not get adequate care while the dummer one would have to marry some male not as good as you.

Again, it comes down to the selection criterion. Not only that though. If you select intelligent women busy with their careers for the purpose of getting offspring with good genes, these mommies will have less time for their kids. The solution you suggest is then to marry a dumber one and use her as a maid or a child-rearer. Some women might be willing to make this deal - many would not. Even the less intelligent ones would want to create life they can say is coming from them.

Furthermore, given that in the case of humans, the relationship of nature vs nurture is a bit unknown, and that the environment in which offspring grow up is very important, it'd make little sense to have the kids reared by someone with less intelligence (if we assume that intelligence make a person better at whatever task at hand, a reasonable assumption in this discussion to keep things simple) rear the kids. The more intelligent moms would do a better job, and this in turn would have consequences for the succes of the offspring, and with it, your own propogation of your genes.

Combining both would offer an obvious benefit to everyone involved - except for the would-be husband of the #2 wife.

And as mentioned, the #2 wife's chances of propogating her genes. Assuming she gets pregnant too, you've given some of your offspring less good genes than the other, which could result in the 1st and 2nd grade offspring discussed previously. Humans do use eugenics quite naturally, but I am not sure this particular way is one I'd want to go.

Miko:
Alternative strategy is to find an accomplished woman and persuade her to give up her carreer in favor of having children but the mental coditioning is too strong. They realise the truth often too late in their life.

Not sure what you mean with mental conditioning, and the truth the kids realize. Care to elaborate?

Miko:
But I never implied that a women would have to sacrifice having her own children in order to care for others - you somehow made that conclusion.

Mm. quite true. You mentioned 'applying their maternal instincts towards the children of others' or something in that direction. I read that asexclusive, rather than inclusive.

It's not unreasonable to see it that way - there's a limit to how man kids can be supported by one man, which suggests that some would ahve to give up the priviledge. Studies of children of divorced parents have showed the importance of having a *strong* presence of a man to a child.

[StSanta]

Continues:



Miko:
Also, I did not use any arguments from evolution - again, you have to sort out which of the statements/conclusions  are yours .

Well: 'But why should he? Having a better husband, bigger family and guaranteed help in childcare she may opt for more if she is so inclined.'

Better husband - better genes. Less good husband -  less good genes. Bigger family and guaranteed help in childcare could apply to less good husband too. Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other here, dunno.

Miko:
If it comes to evolution, having a family is an evolutionary adaptation and kin selection is common not only in humans but in other animals. So being family must be better then being strangers as far as siblings are concerned.
It would be strange if it were not - you are as related to your full sibling as you are to your children. Genetically there is no difference. Older siblings often help parents with the younger ones in many species of animals. A gene for saving a brother is as likely to increase in frequency as a gene for saving a child.

The difference here is between having siblings where you have the same parents, i.e share as much genetic material as possible, and having siblings with which you just share half as much. For the man, a non issue. As you say, the kids are fully his. For the woman, they either are, or are not. For the kids, half siblings vs full siblings.

Miko:
Obviously in some specied you may not be sure if teh sibling is you full or half brother and in some species siblings  are more closely related to an individual then offsprings with appropriate concequences for behaviour. But I digress...

Digressing. I've made an art outta that one. Have I told you...err.. .

Miko:
XIt is a surprise to me that someone would consider siblings relationships in humans as less advantageous then strangers to any considerable degree - is that reflection from your personal experience or otherwise? Barring few freak examples I read about, I see brotherly/sisterly love all around me.

My comment was merely put in place to point out that having siblings is no guarantee of there being love between them. It is possible to have the opposite. I know of several faimilies where the siblings are strangers to each others: know of more where they are aqcuaintances. Know many where they are friends, but little more. Still the frequency of love is higher here than amongst total strangers. But, if the kids had full siblings of the same parents in tight knit small families, the chances of growing intimate relationship would be higher than if there were tons of kids, some full siblings, some half, perhaps with 1st and 2nd rate thrown in, then the chances of love between 'em would be higher.

Bad sentence. Too long. .

Miko:
Consider blacks in US - 1/3 of the eligible males are in jail or on parole - due to our stupid "war on drugs", etc. The remaining 2/3ds often have their problems too. At the same time there is a huge number of incredibly lovely, educated, hard working proffessional black (all shades) woman who have no hope of getting a husband. Their lot would be much better if they could flock to those successfull black (or other) men instead of staying alone or ruining their lives with some low-life.

Assuming the man would want to share his genes with less good females. This is not certain: I for one jealously guard my genes and really pick and choose. Also, women choose for a variety of reasons. They might fall in love with a thug, or they might not. To transcend the social ladder like you're suggesting would require a big intervention and altering of the social structure in society. Unfortunately, people tend to find mates who are in their own social groups, for various and to this discussion irrelevant reasons.

Miko:
I bet that a prospect of not getting a wife would be a huge insentive for every man to stay in school and out of jail!

LOL, quite true. Then again: these are criminals we're talking about. if they cannot get an outlet for their sexual drive legally, they'll resort to other means.

Me:
..since we're talking about letting the man get the goodies of having many wives

Miko:
Plus the responcibilities of course - married sex is the most expencive kind there is if you only interested in sex.

Mm. Sex was just an example: there are lots of other needs and priviledges. Agreed on the responsibilities part.

Me:
..whereas the woman has to do good with whatever time she can wrestle from the shared man.

Miko:
She can have a man of her choice, a career and a children who would be cared for.

But not enough *time* with the man, not enough *resources* from him. There'll be some kind of scheduling algorithm involved - in a way is similar to OS theory. . There's more to it than just having the man around at times, and giving his genes to you.
                 
Miko:
Since the whole thing is based on choice, no woman can object. No one makes her join. Those staying out of polyginous marriages would have wider choice of males as a free benefit.
In fact, no one prevents any woman to assemble a harem of men from the surplus.

It is true that if she decides to join, she will have to accept all the limitations that come with it. Will it result in happiness? That's also part of the discussion. Agreed is that we're not merely discussing ensuring that your offspring get the best possible genes. Is it a viable structure for a loving family?

Me:
Interesting discussion. I et, however, if we include a few of the more vocal women, they'd call this 'sexism'...

Open it up for both genders and the situation becomes much more complex, but also much more interesting.

Miko:
They are welcome to talk about whatevet tickles their fancy.
Personally I am not interested in discussing polyandric relationships but by no means do I oppose it - if some women attract more then one men, more women are left for the rest of us!

Quite true! I was more talking about fully polygamic relationships. That is, not 1-n relationship woman to man, or n-1, but n-m.

THAT would make things interesting .

I think I understand where you're coming from, and in most respects I agree. We have, as it is, some artificial structures in place everyone takes for granted. I salute you for bringing it up for evaluation - as our discussion has shown, there are several very legit points to a polygamous system. Also some concerns - but then again, that's true about monogamous systems as well! We could have this same discussion, but regarding monogamy instead. It's just that monogamy is ingrained, drilled, brainwashed into us, and therefore we do not.

Despite the length of this discussion, I feel that what we disagree on are minor, theoretical points. When it boils down to it, the problem most people have with polygamy has nothing to do with abstract thinking about genes, or rational thinking about how people can best benefit each other. Rather, it's down to something even the most uneducated and stupid people know very well - jealousy. Cannot count the times I've seen fights between men (and women) related to 'ownership' of their mate.
                     

That's 14500 characters or something in total. Only 10 000 characters per post - what were they thinking, those that made this silly thing?

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Elfenwolf
...How could any of you people  even consider having TWICE as many women thinking up "Honey-Do" lists? Who wants to go through the humiliation of having several women talk about your "shortcomings" in bed?...

 What the heck are you talking about, Elfenwolf?!

 BTW, polygamy is not illegal in US - consenting citisens can set up their living arrangements any way they choose. There is a legal term for "spouse" and that can only be one at a time - but it only matters on the tax forms and in some legal matters. People were creating families and having kids long before US (or any)government was created .
 Scarcity of polygamy in US is a purely cultural/religious phenomenon.

 StSanta: Your perceived disagreements with me are mostly follow from you apparent supposition that the members of the existing hypothetical relationship are somehow thrown in together and now you have to justify/disprove by weighting the positives and negatives.

 The basic part in my hypothetical relationship is that all the participants have already weighted the advantages vs. disadvantages in view of their preferences and joined in as free consenting individuals.

 The purpose of the thread was to list the advantages/disadvantages of such an arrangement that individuals might consider before getting married. We cannot possibly make any general case of weighting them - tastes differ too much...

 That is my closing remark in this thread - it is getting too long. Thanks for participation.

 miko