Why cannot a man love more than one wife?

Page

Next Last

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

All historicals are basing their story on one fact - that an king or emperor had one wife whom he loved more than other wives(rather he ignored others for one)

Rana Udai Singh had dheerbhaiji

Maharana Pratap had Ajabde

Akbar had Jodha

Jehangir had Nur Jahan

Now Chandragupta has Nandini

So what about other wives?

Is it possible a man only loves one wife and just ignores all others royally?

Then how come they have children from other wives?

And the other wives are from powerful empires - if husband ignore them will their parents and siblings keep quiet and still help their son in laws?

I mean its human nature is it not that if in laws treat daughter badly, parents and siblings will keep grouse and there will be friction. (remember padmanand threatens malekeytu, same way many fathers love thie daughters to bits)

Why cannot a man love more than one woman at a time or at different times?

If parents have three children will they feed only one favorite and fulfill wishes of one and just ignore other two to their fate? (Yes sometimes the favourite child usually boys gets more attention and all wishes fulfilled but other kids are not ignored completely)

Similarly if husband has many wives will he not take care of each when she is upset, unwell or has had personal loss(like child death, parents death etc) just leave them to fate?

Even great lovers like Shah Jahan, Salim, Pratap moved on in life married others after their favourite spouse(lover) death.

So why should we stick to the fact that a man can only love one woman all life and only that wife will get superior rights over other wives?

That was 300 BC not 21st century where man only had one wife and loved that one wife. Today despite norm of one wife(or husband) we have high divorce rates and infidelity, greatest of love can fall apart with time or people move on after death of their greatest loves.

That was 300 BC when a man could have hundreds of wives. Now take case of Chandragupta Maurya his three wives whom we know are Dhradhara, Nandini and Helena. Dhuradara died young may be even before he became an emperor, Nandini was his enemy Dhanannad daughter whom he married for political legitemacy and Helena for peace in region again. Now cannot Chandra just love all of them equally as they came into his life at different times. Why show Helena as vamp and Dhuradhara sidelined just to promote one wife Nandini?

Same is case of Akbar, they show Salima as a celibate widow who married Akbar for Rahim's sake, Ruqaiah as a vamp only to show he loved Jodha more.

Why should other wives turn celibate saints or vamps to make one wife love great? That means the other wives if they were normal emperor would have loved them but since they did not meet his standards he ignored?

Why cannot a emperor love many wives at same time which would anyway be the case? Yes if he has 100s of wives he cannot love all 100 equally but a few will have equal place in his life and heart cannot they?

Why marry so many when you cannot treat all of them equal or give them all rights and love?

I am seriously not liking this turning of other wives as vamps or saints just to show one love story of an emperor.

Instead just show the one wife love story and do not introduce other wives and degrade them or their image in eyes of viewers.

Edited by myviewprem - 8 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

disha

@disha15

Stunner

+ 5

Posted: 8 years ago

I believe a person can have different kind of affection for various people in their lives. Only in ideal situations,one might find all the desired qualities in one single person.

That being said,wives lived in 'harmony' is whats been said. But I find that hard to believe. People more often than not,tend to avoid saying what they really mean. But sharing a 'spouse' is always hard. Jealousy is definitely there. Some may be vocal about it,some may not. No matter how 'mahaan' a person is. But its always there.

Nevertheless,we as humans crave for love. That's the basic nature of a human being to have a person dedicate all his/her affection towards you.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: .FemmeFatale.
I believe a person can have different kind of affection for various people in their lives. Only in ideal situations,one might find all the desired qualities in one single person.
That being said,wives lived in 'harmony' is whats been said. But I find that hard to believe. People more often than not,tend to avoid saying what they really mean. But sharing a 'spouse' is always hard. Jealousy is definitely there. Some may be vocal about it,some may not. No matter how 'mahaan' a person is. But its always there.

Nevertheless,we as humans crave for love. That's the basic nature of a human being to have a person dedicate all his/her affection towards you.

But dear those were 300 BC. Every man(commoner included) had many wives living together even in small huts. It was expected norm.

Today in 21st century we are used to one spouse one husband but those women were used to having many soutens.

Their fathers/grandfathers had many wives and their brothers had many wives, they were used to one husband many wives

Marriage was not so sacrosanct as today, many marriages did not have official wedding rituals

Man just stayed with a woman(you can he was married but no official ceremony was there, no guests blessed couple, no priest conducted elaborate ceremony) and then moved to another place(with or without wife)

Like ashoka many wives he did not marry in official ceremony(with parents and siblings present or priests etc), he was in that place and took a wife and had kids and then left them behind and went to another place for official duty. There he married another and so on.

Marriage was not like now with family present, neighbours friends and relatives etc, priestly ceremony etc

So women were used to staying with one husband many soutens

and husband had many wives in many places in different cities

society was not as evolved as 21st century where you have to divorce on wife to marry another and you need marriage certificate and photos and elders presence to prove marriage etc

Edited by myviewprem - 8 years ago

Quote

disha

@disha15

Stunner

+ 5

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: myviewprem

But dear those were 300 BC. Every man(commoner included) had many wives living together even in small huts. It was expected norm.

Today in 21st century we are used to one spouse one husband but those women were used to having many soutens.

Their fathers/grandfathers had many wives and their brothers had many wives, they were used to one husband many wives

Marriage was not so sacrosanct as today, many marriages did not have official wedding rituals

Man just stayed with a woman(you can he was married but no official ceremony was there, no guests blessed couple, no priest conducted elaborate ceremony) and then moved to another place(with or without wife)

Like ashoka many wives he did not marry in official ceremony(with parents and siblings present or priests etc), he was in that place and took a wife and had kids and then left them behind and went to another place for official duty. There he married another and so on.

Marriage was not like now with family present, neighbours friends and relatives etc, priestly ceremony etc

So women were used to staying with one husband many soutens

and husband had many wives in many places in different cities

society was not as evolved as 21st century where you have to divorce on wife to marry another and you need marriage certificate and photos and elders presence to prove marriage etc

Yes,I get that. And there is no doubt about it. What Im saying though is the fact that deep down.every wife may have had some bitterness regarding polygamy. They may have lived normally,but they must have wanted to feel like they were 'the one'.

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

Disha,

You do not understand the mechanics, emotional and practical, of the whole polygamy set up. Many wives might have detested their husbands, or at best tolerated them. The idea of love in marriage was hardly a universally accepted concept. What was accepted was the concept of duty. All this all encompassing love is a myth that hardly mattered in most of these marriages.

It was not only in India, but in many other countries. In Africa, a chief's head wife was often happy when he took another, younger wife,for she could get the husband off her back for a few years at least, and there would be one more hand to cope with the household chores!😆

I have to run now, but I might be back later to expand on this.

One more point, Prem. Polygamy was possible only for those who could afford it. Moreover, the male female ration is generally roughly equal. So there could never have been enough women around to make the practice of polygamy on a large scale possible in any society,

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: .FemmeFatale.

Yes,I get that. And there is no doubt about it. What Im saying though is the fact that deep down.every wife may have had some bitterness regarding polygamy. They may have lived normally,but they must have wanted to feel like they were 'the one'.

Quote

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: .FemmeFatale.

Yes,I get that. And there is no doubt about it. What Im saying though is the fact that deep down.every wife may have had some bitterness regarding polygamy. They may have lived normally,but they must have wanted to feel like they were 'the one'.

Dear deep down

every child wishes it was only child of its parents

deep down almost all brothers are jealous that daddy loves their sister more

deep down almost all daughters are upset that moms favorites are brothers and not them

deep down almost all girls want to be boys( atleast in patriarchal country like india and asia) so they had more freedom and respect in society

deep down many wish they were as rich as bill gates etc and retire at 40 years with billions

deep down all wives wish husband do not have mothers and sisters

deep down many people wish many things

But if only deep down wishes could be true ... it depends on circumstances to survive all humans compromise and so these wives also compromised

Edited by myviewprem - 8 years ago

Quote

disha

@disha15

Stunner

+ 5

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: sashashyam
Disha,

You do not understand the mechanics, emotional and practical, of the whole polygamy set up. Many wives might have detested their husbands, or at best tolerated them. The idea of love in marriage was hardly a universally accepted concept. What was accepted was the concept of duty. All this all encompassing love is a myth that hardly mattered in most of these marriages.
@bold : This is the very point I'm making Aunty. They must have been dutiful and all kinds of pativrata,but I don't believe that they whole-heartedly accepted this system without atleast some amount of discomfort.

It was not only in India, but in many other countries. In Africa, a chief's head wife was often happy when he took another, younger wife,for she could get the husband off her back for a few years at least, and there would be one more hand to cope with the household chores!😆

This sounds fun😆 You gave a different perspective to this😆 But again,I think this was 'okay' for a while and they may have been glad they the chores were being shared. Would they whole-heartedly accept their husband's affection being shared in the long run? Don't think so. (This ofcourse assuming the wife actually loves the man)

I have to run now, but I might be back later to expand on this.

One more point, Prem. Polygamy was possible only for those who could afford it. Moreover, the male female ration is generally roughly equal. So there could never have been enough women around to make the practice of polygamy on a large scale possible in any society,

Shyamala Aunty

I guess once I'm married I'll have a different perspective on this. Maybe I get fed up of him,who knows😆

Edited by .FemmeFatale. - 8 years ago

Quote

disha

@disha15

Stunner

+ 5

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: myviewprem

Dear deep down

every child wishes it was only child of its parents

deep down almost all brothers are jealous that daddy loves their sister more

deep down almost all daughters are upset that moms favorites are brothers and not them

deep down almost all girls want to be boys( atleast in patriarchal country like india and asia) so they had more freedom and respect in society

deep down many wish they were as rich as bill gates etc and retire at 40 years with billions

deep down all wives wish husband do not have mothers and sisters

deep down many people wish many things

But if only deep down wishes could be true ... it depends on circumstances to survive all humans compromise and so these wives also compromised

Arre I never said all their wishes came true. 😆 Im just suggesting that they may have wanted that. I never said that they got what they want. 😆 Compromises are always needed.

as I said in my first post. ,Im not saying that they found everything they desired in one woman Everybody finds something to like in various people. This holds true even today.

Also emotion is not same as wealth. Emotions have no logic more often than not

Edited by .FemmeFatale. - 8 years ago

Quote

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: sashashyam
Disha,

You do not understand the mechanics, emotional and practical, of the whole polygamy set up. Many wives might have detested their husbands, or at best tolerated them. The idea of love in marriage was hardly a universally accepted concept. What was accepted was the concept of duty. All this all encompassing love is a myth that hardly mattered in most of these marriages.

It was not only in India, but in many other countries. In Africa, a chief's head wife was often happy when he took another, younger wife,for she could get the husband off her back for a few years at least, and there would be one more hand to cope with the household chores!😆

I have to run now, but I might be back later to expand on this.

One more point, Prem. Polygamy was possible only for those who could afford it. Moreover, the male female ration is generally roughly equal. So there could never have been enough women around to make the practice of polygamy on a large scale possible in any society,

Shyamala Aunty

Aunty true majority marriages were not for love

Its more that in those time woman cannot stay alone or be a divorcee etcso they married

and that was more of arranged marriages by elders and parents not love where girl selects a boy and vice versa

If you ask two three generations down, the husband and wife saw each others face only in mantap, they did not even meet or see a photo. Parents arranged everthing, they just dressed and arrived in mantap for wedding. In many villages still this is norm, the parents talk, see and arrange, bride and groom just go to mantap to marry. Of course now because of mobiles etc atleast photo is shown, buut not so in 1950s, 60s etc

The next point you made is very valid, i had once travelled to a village(and it was not any remote village it has electricity, school etc) and i met an lady who was in her late 30s and had 12 children(she was married by 12-13 years). And she told her husband wanted more as he wanted labour at home and fields. More children means you have more help in fields. Even today despite being in modern world many people want more children so they can get free help in labour and at home. And usually mother does not care for the younger ones, the younger siblings usually daughters stay back in home and cook and care for younger ones and parents and elder siblings(usually boys) work in fields. It makes economic sense too, if your kids were not there you would have to hire labour with money now its free she said. Also some kids went and worked in landlord fields as they had taken loan etc That is why in villages having more kids is very important. The daughters will take care of younger siblings, some daughters will not even go to school and have full time duty to take care of house and younger siblings. The elder boys will go to farm, only youngest sons or daughters will have luck to go to school if any.

Aunty i disagree that if you are rich only you can afford more wives and polygamy. If you see in todays times usually the poor class have polygamy and then the very rich class. The middle class usually has had only one wife usually(exceptions always there) so economy never determined polygamy, it was the culture. In very poor class its ok to have 2-3 wives even today and the very rich class who can afford