|
26-01-2005, 05:19 | #21 | ||
Bitchka
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,990
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
~~~~~~~~~~~
oh... o! |
|||
Reply With Quote |
26-01-2005, 05:24 | #22 |
no....
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lansing, MI
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,861
|
My question is, is it just Polygamy (1 man and many women) to be legal, or both it and Polyandry (1 woman and many men) ... or is this just will it get a new term like "Mass Marriage" or something...
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.broke-hip.com |
|
Reply With Quote |
26-01-2005, 06:03 | #23 | |
My Waking Hour
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: in oblivion
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,487
|
Quote:
Oh the sick mofos ...and we had them coming to our house when I was little for conversion. They all dress alike and behave alike, it's like the Aryan race from hell. Polygyny is the right term - for one man and many women - thegurgi...polygamy refers to both sexes so when they say they investigate whether blah blah blah they obviously mean both sexes. |
|
Last edited by spyretto; 26-01-2005 at 06:13. |
||
Reply With Quote |
26-01-2005, 08:30 | #24 |
winter days ...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: L WorLd
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,787
|
as far as i know, polyandry is still practised in nepal as well [just as an aside]
i think the principle of having several wives to one husband evolved during war times [in some areas] due to the higher ratio of women to men. everyone is going to have their own spin on things i guess and add traditions and "laws" etc about how this all should work. and generally yes, women end up being the subserviant ones. |
Reply With Quote |
26-01-2005, 13:17 | #25 |
iMod
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Normandie
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,839
|
Yeah, people often confuse polygamy and polygyny nowadays. I suppose it's because during historical times, polygyny became much more common than polyandry, and so when polygamy is mentioned people immediately think of polygyny.
That being said, in prehistorical times, it's polyandry that was the rule. In those days men spent most of their time hunting and fighting with rival tribes, early deaths were pretty common. Women never left the dwelling and relied completely on men for food, women had to have several husbands because if they had only one and he died during a hunt or a fight, she wouldn't get any food for her and her children, so it was just common sense to have several husbands to limit that risk. For men however it made no sense to have several wives because there was no way one man would be able to feed several women and their children, so polygyny was unknown. It's only with civilization that polygyny started to develop. With civilizations appeared clear hierarchy among men, some men became leaders, they had power and wealth, so it became possible for them to have several wives. Also, those men had to transmit their power and wealth to their descendants, so having legitimate heirs became a major concern. It became customary for those men to have several wives to insure that they would get several male heirs. Those men also tended to live longer, so it also became customary to take a new young wife (and in those days that meant something like 12 yo) when the first older wife was no longer so appealing and fertile. In most civilizations, not only polygyny developed, but polyandry decayed. First because with agriculture and breeding it became easier for one man to feed one or more women and their children, but also and mainly because the notions of property and heritage appeared. Men wanted their properties to be transmitted to children they were sure to have fathered. With polyandry, since women had several husbands, a man was never sure which children were his, and with properties to transmit that became unacceptable for men. So not only polyandry decayed, but in most cases it was even declared illegal and adultery became a serious crime for women. So both polyandry and polygyny originally had logical reasons to exist, reasons that made sense in the social contexts of their times. But now in modern societies where people are free to screw around as much as they want in any number and gender combinations, i'm not sure there is even a need to have any kind of formal union between people (whatever gender and number). |
~~~~~~~~~~~
Patrick | TatySite.net t.E.A.m. [ shortdickman@free.fr ] Last edited by haku; 26-01-2005 at 13:55. |
|
Reply With Quote |
Bookmarks |
|
|