What is your stance on a household with multiple wives?

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Didn't I say that in my first statement?

Yes, but you also said it's "disgusting". So clearly you care + judge people that engage in it, you can't have it both ways.

 

[bcrusaderw]

Yes, but you also said it's "disgusting". So clearly you care + judge people that engage in it, you can't have it both ways.

People can do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone in the process. My opinion on their behavior should have no effect on whether they're allowed to do it or not. That's what I'm saying.

 

[JasonSJackson]

More like ogliarchy

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical (relying on public obedience and/or oppression to exist). Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.

Is this an accurate description?

 

[Family Man]

The difference between a man having multiple wives vs a woman having multiple husbands is that when the wives of the man get pregnant you know who the father is, when a woman with multiple husbands gets pregnant you'll be on Maury playing "which husband is the father", also there has always been more women than men, and men die young, at work,war, and different reasons and women need a man, and if men dont/didnt take multiple wives then there will be women left without a partner, and they still have human desires, which they then act on, which in turn will ruin other familes.

It would be all their kids.

 

[agnosticlady]

Nothing is really wrong with a polygamous marriage. I prefer monogamy, but in certain situations I would enter a polygamous marriage IF the man has his stuff together.

 

[Amy Traphouse]

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical (relying on public obedience and/or oppression to exist). Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.

Is this an accurate description?

Where it is ran as a collective and everyone has a part in making sure the household is good then yes. To me, thats a better option, especially when it comes to combining wealth and creating generational income as opposed to 1 man/5 women.

Alot of men don't think past their dikks so polygamy is a good idea because its multiple women to fukk. I see it from a financial growth standpoint and would be okay with a small community of men and women coming together to build beyond sexual pleasures.

 

[PartyHeart]

Don't be like that. He's right though

in the bible it says be fruitful and multiply.

Men can have multiple babies with women at the same time and women can only carry a child of 1 man at a time.

Not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is.

I don't understand why this is always used an some type of valid reasoning. Just because a man can have multiple children at once does not mean he can sustain and provide for them all. So in that respect, he is still just as "limited" as women.

The difference between a man having multiple wives vs a woman having multiple husbands is that when the wives of the man get pregnant you know who the father is, when a woman with multiple husbands gets pregnant you'll be on Maury playing "which husband is the father", also there has always been more women than men, and men die young, at work,war, and different reasons and women need a man, and if men dont/didnt take multiple wives then there will be women left without a partner, and they still have human desires, which they then act on, which in turn will ruin other familes.

Why would who the father is make a difference? You would all be one happy family. I'm sure in your 1 man multiple wives scenario you would expect the women to share household responsibilities and to help each other in child rearing. Men would do the same in a multiple husbands scenario.

But you all need to keep it real though. You're not interested in polygamy for the children. You're interested in it 1) for the ego boost and 2) for the sex. You would hate to have to provide for 16+ children alone, which if you are following tradition, and biblical scriptures and all that you would have to because the women are not going to work.

 

[agnosticlady]

Where it is ran as a collective and everyone has a part in making sure the household is good then yes. To me, thats a better option, especially when it comes to combining wealth and creating generational income as opposed to 1 man/5 women.

Alot of men don't think past their dikks so polygamy is a good idea because its multiple women to fukk. I see it from a financial growth standpoint and would be okay with a small community of men and women coming together to build beyond sexual pleasures.

Yeah, but an oligarchy rules over a certain group of people, and they are usually tyrants that centralize most of the wealth. What you are talking about is an open marriage/open relationship. Polygamy is more than one wife, and polyandry is more than one husband.

 

[agnosticlady]

I don't understand why this is always used an some type of valid reasoning. Just because a man can have multiple children at once does not mean he can sustain and provide for them all. So in that respect, he is still just as "limited" as women.



Why would who the father is make a difference? You would all be one happy family. I'm sure in your 1 man multiple wives scenario you would expect the women to share household responsibilities and to help each other in child rearing. Men would do the same in a multiple husbands scenario.

But you all need to keep it real though. You're not interested in polygamy for the children. You're interested in it 1) for the ego boost and 2) for the sex. You would hate to have to provide for 16+ children alone, which if you are following tradition, and biblical scriptures and all that you would have to because the women are not going to work.

Who the father is definitely matters. Honestly it is easier for 5 women to have 1 kid each from 1 man than for 1 woman to have 5 kids by 5 different men. If a woman just plans on being a sugar baby, pampered, and having sex then polyandry would not be a bad option for her.

 

[PartyHeart]

Who the father is definitely matters. Honestly it is easier for 5 women to have 1 kid each from 1 man than for 1 woman to have 5 kids by 5 different men. If a woman just plans on being a sugar baby, pampered, and having sex then polyandry would not be a bad option for her.

How is it easier? If a woman wants 5 children, how is it harder for her to have the same amount of children just with different fathers? The process remains the same.

And this is essentially exactly what is desired for polygamy, minus the sugar baby component, so I am simply comparing apples to apples.

 

[agnosticlady]

How is it easier? If a woman wants 5 children, how is it harder for her to have the same amount of children just with different fathers? The process remains the same.

And this is essentially exactly what is desired for polygamy, minus the sugar baby component, so I am simply comparing apples to apples.

It is easier for a woman to push out 1 kid than for a woman to push out five kids back to back. Terrible pain once on your life compared to terrible pain 5 times. By the 5th kid you could be at risk. Of course you could be at risk with just one kid, but 5 kids from one woman is not an easy task.

Polyandry and Polygamy are definitely not the same thing. Polygamy has a better chance of producing a higher population while polyandry does not. You know that out of the five women at least 4 can give you 4 healthy kids, but with just one woman you don't know if she could die by that 4th child birth. Plus you get four kids at once, while compared to polyandry you will get 4 kids at different periods.

 

[PartyHeart]

It is easier for a woman to push out 1 kid than for a woman to push out five kids back to back. Terrible pain once on your life compared to terrible pain 5 times. By the 5th kid you could be at risk. Of course you could be at risk with just one kid, but 5 kids from one woman is not an easy task.

Polyandry and Polygamy are definitely not the same thing. Polygamy has a better chance of producing a higher population while polyandry does not. You know that out of the five women at least 4 can give you 4 healthy kids, but with just one woman you don't know if she could die by that 4th child birth. Plus you get four kids at once, while compared to polyandry you will get 4 kids at different periods.

You're putting in a lot of ridiculous things that no one mentioned to make your point. If you prefer a situation where 1 man has multiple wives but don't like the idea of the reverse happening, you can just say that. I find it questionable, very similar to the guys who have all the excuses about why them having multiple women is ok but women wanting multiple men isn't, but you are entitled to your thoughts.

Because I have no idea who said anything about women "pushing out" children back to back (even though thats fully possible and plausible). Or who said anything about wanting a higher population or what the relevance of that even is. Nor did anyone say anything about having kids all at once or anything else you're talking about.

Women around the world add to their families when they have already had multiple children every day. Its actually rather normal in most places on earth. You also seem to be under the impression that five children all at once the same age is an easy task. That's your opinion but...no. I strongly disagree and find the notion absurd

Oh and many women are okay with having that terrible pain more than once as opposed to having that terrible pain once and then passing it on to other women that their husband can sleep with. That's because, you know, those women actually want multiple children. I tend to actually factor in the women's wants in my conclusions though.