Do most women benefit from polygamy? - Page 2

Created

Last reply

Replies

18

Views

2.1k

Users

6

Frequent Posters

mr.ass thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#11

Originally posted by: return_to_hades



OBJ, my comment was for Indradhanush's post not yours. I do hope he does not think that all of us girls who may drool on Terence, Salim, Shekhar and whoever, are actually totally serious about our droolings and wishful thinkings.

Although, I am totally cool in sharing Terence or any guy with Ajnu. Although I'm not sure if sharing is that beneficial. I think it would be nice if I could two up Draupadi and have one for each day of the week. I should really stick to my resolve now though.



eh? they drool on salim? 😕 he doesnt have looks at all, more like a hyena 😆

although there are some crazy fans 😆

but using dabulls and gauris "droolings" as a reference point won't be a good example 😆 as wa said, it's just for fun :)
*Woh Ajnabee* thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#12

Originally posted by: Indradhanush


But this article read 2 years down the line has refused to die in me.



For starters, this article assumes that marriage is "beneficial". Secondly, define "beneficial". If a woman is married to a first-rate man and sharing that man with three other women, how is that beneficial to her? Good looks? Wealth? Status? Intelligence? What about a first rate man involved in polygamy - doe she get two, three, four "first rate" women? Or does he get two, three, four "third rate" women that together make up for the lack of one "first rate" woman? Third, would this work the same way in reverse then? Men willing to share a "first rate" woman with other men? Why or why not?

Rest later. This article seems extremely ridiculous and bogus to me actually. The statistics are common sense - but the rest is based off of way too many assumptions. I'm not sure how they are even bothering to categorize men to "first rate" and "third rate" categories. While Matt Damon may be a first-rate man to some, he may not be the same to others. And what in the world leads the author to make the conclusion that women prefer sharing a first-rate man to having exclusive entitlement over a third-rate man? That assumption defies all laws of nature - starting with the one that mentions women don't share.


344471 thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#13

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Although contemporary society will say anything but monogamy or abstinence is wrong.



Why? 😕
mr.ass thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#14


She might have meant wrong in a "omg, that's just WRONG." way 😆 But if she didn't, perhaps she meant that it was abnormal for a human to practice abstinence?

gopalbhai thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#15


May be it sounds ok now?
mr.ass thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#16

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*



For starters, this article assumes that marriage is "beneficial". Secondly, define "beneficial". If a woman is married to a first-rate man and sharing that man with three other women, how is that beneficial to her? Good looks? Wealth? Status? Intelligence? What about a first rate man involved in polygamy - doe she get two, three, four "first rate" women? Or does he get two, three, four "third rate" women that together make up for the lack of one "first rate" woman? Third, would this work the same way in reverse then? Men willing to share a "first rate" woman with other men? Why or why not?

Rest later. This article seems extremely ridiculous and bogus to me actually. The statistics are common sense - but the rest is based off of way too many assumptions. I'm not sure how they are even bothering to categorize men to "first rate" and "third rate" categories. While Matt Damon may be a first-rate man to some, he may not be the same to others. And what in the world leads the author to make the conclusion that women prefer sharing a first-rate man to having exclusive entitlement over a third-rate man? That assumption defies all laws of nature - starting with the one that mentions women don't share.




probably a third rate man is just a man with lots of bad qualities, like laziness, indifference, lacking respect, etc.


Indradhanush thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#17

I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do The economic case for polygamy.

By Tim Harford (undercover reporter)

After more than a decade of war between separatist rebels and the Russian army, there are not many marriageable men to go around in Chechnya. So, acting Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov, probably not a feminist, proposed a radical step: "Each man who can provide for four wives should do it."

Polygyny (having more than one wife, as opposed to polygamy, which is having more than one spouse) is admissible under Islamic law but not Russian law, so Kadyrov is unlikely to make much progress with his proposal. But what difference would such a law make? It's natural to assume that polygyny is bad for women, partly because most of us would rather have our spouse to ourselves, and partly because we look at a place like Saudi Arabia, where polygyny is not uncommon, and note that women aren't even allowed to drive
It's hardly surprising that in most polygynous societies, the bride's family gets large payments in exchange for her hand in marriage. If polygyny combined with women's rights, I bet we'd see more promises to wash the dishes. Not everybody would have to share a husband, but I can think of some who might prefer half of Orlando Bloom to all of Tim Harford—including my wife.

In a society such as Chechnya, where there is a shortage of young men, we would expect the reverse effect: Men get to pick and choose, playing the field, perhaps not bothering to get married at all. We don't have good data on Chechnya, but we have excellent information about an unexpected parallel.

A little over one in 100 American men are in prison—but there are several states where one in five young black men are behind bars. Since most women marry men of a similar age, and of the same race and in the same state, there are some groups of women who face a dramatic shortfall of marriage partners.

Economist Kerwin Charles has recently studied the plight of these women. Their problem is not merely that some who would want to marry won't be able to. It's that the available men—those not in prison—suddenly have more bargaining power. Goodbye to doing the dishes and paying the rent; hello to mistresses and wham, bam, thank you ma'am. The women whose potential partners have had their ranks thinned by prison are less likely to marry, and when they do marry, are likely to marry a man less educated than they are. Meanwhile, the remaining men, finding a surfeit of marriage partners, suddenly seem in no hurry to marry. And why would they?

The women's response makes sense: girl power. The women affected do everything to make the most of single life, including staying at school for longer and hunting for more paid work. The American prison system hasn't left them much choice.

When men are taken out of the marriage market by war or by prison, women suffer. The reverse is probably true, too: When women are taken from the marriage market, men suffer. In China, the policy of one-child families coupled with selective abortion of girls has produced "surplus" males. Such men are called "bare branches," and China could have 30 million of them by 2020. Perhaps polyandry—women with multiple husbands—would be the logical response to the situation in China. What will happen instead is that these lonely, wifeless men will end up sleeping with a relatively small number of women—prostitutes—with severe risks of sexually transmitted disease all around.

All this suggests that Kadyrov has a point about Chechnya. And perhaps the new HBO series Big Love will help to rehabilitate polygamy's reputation in the United States. Nevertheless, I am resolutely against the practice of allowing several women to marry one man. We men are downtrodden enough already.

344471 thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#18

Originally posted by: gopalbhai



May be it sounds ok now?



Haha, now I get it. 😆 It's like "Contemporary society will say that anything other than monogamy or abstinence is wrong" - or at least that's the way I'm interpreting Sarina's post as for now. But I will wait until she clarifies her stance by herself. Knowing her, I am assuming I've interpreted her the right way.

@ OP: Instead of simply copy/pasting articles penned down by someone else, maybe you'd like to come up with something original if you'd really like us to take you seriously.

Anyway, off to watch a movie. Will post my $0.02 later if I get time.
Edited by PhoeniXof_Hades - 15 years ago
gopalbhai thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#19

Originally posted by: Indradhanush


.......Polygyny (having more than one wife, as opposed to polygamy, which is having more than one spouse) is admissible under Islamic law but not Russian law,....



I do not get this part. How polygamy and polygyny is different here ? . i do not think Islamic law anywhere has any provision for polyandry !!

Related Topics

Debate Mansion thumbnail

Posted by: Viswasruti · 1 months ago

🤱Surrogacy: Womb For Hire! Is It A Blessing Or A Curse For Women?👶 Infertility can be a challenging obstacle to overcome, but advances in...

Expand ▼
Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".