Beta males upset that alpha chad is hogging all them hos.
Amongst consenting people of adult age, why is this still oppressed?
I am your God
Beta males upset that alpha chad is hogging all them hos.
If God wanted us to have more than one wife, he would have made more than one woman for Adam.
Flowers gathered in the morning,
Afternoon they blossom on,
Still are withered by the evening:
You can be me when I'm gone.
let the gays be married. you sir can only have one wife. I don't get it.
I am your God
If they are all consenting to it I see no reason it shouldn't be allowed. And if a goat could, I'd say you could marry it too!
No idea why they'd limit the number when the marriage rate has been going down recently.
Personally I see nothing wrong with polygamy as long as everyone's consenting to it. Monogamy obviously isn't for everyone, hence polygamy(and polyandry) for that matter are useful in that some people could find happiness in having either multiple wives/husbands. Though I'm sure all types of shit can/does happen when someone has multiple wives/husbands, the same can be said for people in monogamous relationships.
I found this interesting bit on women who have multiple husbands in Tibet from an 1892 book-
Polyandry, or the practice of taking multiple husbands
Added over 5 years ago
By Linda Heaphy. Copyright 2012
The five Pandava princes- heroes of the epic Mahabharata – with their shared wife-in-common Draupadi
The five Pandava princes, heroes of the Indian epic Mahabharata, with their shared wife-in-common Draupadi
Polyandry is the practice of one woman taking two or more husbands. The custom evolved in human cultures where resources, particularly land and food, were scarce, and/or where women were allowed to own property or ancestral titles of rank. In some parts of the world it occurred in areas where women themselves were scarce, for example in cultures where female infanticide was routinely carried out, or where females were less likely to survive to adulthood. Polyandry allowed men to pool their resources and live comfortable lives that might otherwise be denied to them and their children. And in these relationships, the women often enjoyed a very high status.
Polyandry was practiced at the dawning of human civilisation and across the world: throughout the Indian subcontinent, in areas such as the Canadian Arctic and in parts of Africa, China and the Americas. We know that in some ancient Celtic societies, women were allowed to own property and therefore marry more than one husband, because Julius Caesar complained about it along with several other Britton customs. Around 2300 BCE the Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash abolished the custom of polyandry entirely in Mesopotamia. Polyandry was also prohibited successively by the monotheist faiths Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In today’s world, a recent survey of tribal societies indicates that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and only 0.47% practice polyandry. And in almost all cases, the polyandry practiced is fraternal, where a group of brothers share a wife. Fraternal polyandry was also believed to be the norm historically. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men share a wife, is virtually nonexistent because of its inherent instability: a group of unrelated men would be far less willing to share the parenting of a completely unrelated child, no matter the immediate benefits.
In pockets of India, Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet the custom of polyandry continued until relatively recently, particularly amongst the many minority peoples of the region. While the custom has now been banned in Tibet by Chinese authorities, in India the practice seems to be dying a natural death. Increasing resources and opportunities allow men to leave resource-poor areas and find jobs and wives elsewhere. And all of this has happened in the space of a single generation. As one Malang Indian local, the son of a polyandrous marriage, put it in an interview to the New York Times in 2010 “That system had utility for a time. But in the present context it has outlived its usefulness. The world has changed”.
A little northeast of Lhassa, among the mountains that cover that part of the great plateau of Tibet, the explorer Bonvalot found a large population. It is in these valleys that some of the rivers of India have their headquarters. This region, says the New York Sun, is peculiar as the part of Tibet where polyandry is the custom, and this feature of social life has given Tibet some notoriety, because there are very few parts of the world in which polyandry is practised. Bonvalot thus describes the custom as it exists in Tibet.
A family has a daughter. A young man wishes to enter the family, to live under its roof, and become the husband of the daughter. He consults with the parents, and if they arrive at an agreement in regard to the amount of property he is to turn over to them, he takes up his abode in the hut and becomes the husband of the daughter. It may be that there are other young men desirous of partaking of the same good fortune. They are not at all deterred by the fact that the girl is already provided with a husband. They present themselves at the hut, make offers of certain property, and, unless the first husband has paid what is regarded in Tibet as a very large sum in order to secure the young woman as his exclusive possession, she becomes likewise the wife of these other claimants for her hand, and the whole family live together in the same hut and in the utmost harmony.
It rarely happens that a young man thinks so much of the girl he weds in this peculiar fashion as to be jealous of others who also desire to be her husband. Now and then, however, such a case arises, and then there is likely to be bloodshed. He is a happy young man who is wealthy enough to become the sole lord and master of his wife. It is a question entirely of money. If the young Tibetan is rich enough he buys a wife and remains the only master of the household. Sometimes, also, the husband acquires sufficient property to buy out the interest? of the other husbands and then they retire from the field. They are generally content if they receive back a little more money than they paid for their interest in the young woman. The children are always regarded as belonging to the woman, and the fathers lay no claims upon them. Polyandry is not established by law, but it is a custom which probably arose at some time when the female population was less numerous than the male, and it has been continued largely on account of the poverty of the people. Polygamy is practiced as well as polyandry.
While the poorest men have only a fractional interest in one wife, the rich men of the community have several wives. The chiefs have as many as they can buy. Financial considerations, therefore, have all to do with questions of matrimony.
From Polyandry In Tibet - A Country Where Women Have Several Husbands Apiece. - Financial Considerations Rule All Matrimonial Questions in the Land of the Lama, But Jealousy It Not Popular. Syndicated, The Piqua Daily Call (Oh.), Apr. 6, 1892, p. 4
I would assume it's a logistical problem of trying to determine survivor benefits, etc. I don't have an issue with multiple "sister wives" that are there just through their own accord, but I think it's just a legal gray area.
Except in Utah but that's a historical problem. And that most times polygamy isn't consenting adults but instead powerful men and subservient girls.
Could you imagine being told to take out the bins that many times?
I also think Chad Thundercock is not in the market for multiple dairy cattle when he can have free milk at the flourish of his pork sword.
Live and let live. It's not something that interests me, but some people (men and women) clearly aren't wired to be monogamous and shouldn't be forced into being so just because that is the current cultural norm. Arguably none of us are wired to be monogamous, we're just told that is the normal way of things.
I'm in kind of my free love hippie bull shit view point on it. If it doesn't hurt anybody and won't land you in prison, have at it. As far as why it's oppressed...at least here in the united states I think a part of it is that it's progressive and a lot of americans still hate anything that challenges a 1950's point of view. It isn't what is common in american society, therefore if that changed then who knows what sort of whacky shit could ensue. Then probably toss in there that muslims do it so that adds more fuel to the fear fire. Americans don't like change. Our slogan is pretty much "Because it's always been that way".
The way I look at it, any man who has more than one wife is suffering from a self-inflicted punishment that no governmental entity could ever match.
In older times, a man could have as many wives as he could afford, which really hasn't changed.
I only see two problems here: the aforementioned survivor benefits and divorce. Both of these could easily be taken care of by lawyers who aren't even good enough to work bankruptcy.
If all of mankind minus one were of of one opinion, and only one person of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
-John Stuart Mill
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)