The issue of polygamy

[bluess]

Hey, nowadays you can't be sure of biological parenthood even if mommy pops the baby out - have you heard of egg donation?

And this topic keeps reverting back to one guy, many women. Harumph.

 

[sackett]

Relax, lady

We concentrate on polygamy because it's so much more common than polyandry. I for one know more than I need to about the former, and would like to read up on the dynamics of the latter.

There. Now, back to polygamy: You can see why a polygamist would be a busy man, and a suspicious one, especially if he had overloaded his plate and couldn't finish everything. You can also see why traditional Muslim countries have so many murders of young women "for honor's sake." When your "honor" can be so wounded by one straying female, you have to be fierce and vigilant, and ruthless if a wife or daughter or niece does anything that so much as hints at unchastity. If she even dresses as if she -might- fancy a little unchastity, a man has no choice but to out with his sword* and well I guess you know what I mean.

* Or his Kalashnikov. Or his SUV. Screw this topic.

 

[swstephe]

some direct experiences

My sister-in-law is wife #2 in a polygynous marriage. It seems to suck for her and the kids. They hardly ever see him, since wife #1 is in another country and the husband, because of his nationality, seems to spend more time in the other country. He promised divorcing wife #1, but doesn't because of kids over there.

I've talked to a couple of first wives who were happy to let their husband take a second wife, especially after not being able to have children, (and not getting a divorce in the process), but most of the polygynous marriages over here seem to be cover up for extra-marital affairs. The husband fools around, gets caught, and explains that he will be getting married to the other woman. Fortunately, this country is modernizing a bit and now the wife must give her permission. Unfortunately, many women say something like, "fine, get married, see if I care", and throwing away that right. The ones who do refuse sternly might end up with a divorce in the end.

In fact, my current wife was about to become a #1 when her ex-husband started cheating on her, but she did something outlandish and divorced him.

Which brings me to the point of "serial polygamy". Both of us being married previously, we have to admit that you never really leave your previous spouses, they are stuck with you -- her when she is scared I'll get angry at her, and me when I wake up from nightmares about *my* ex.

Then there is The Philippines, where everyone I mention that I was divorced to says, "oh, well there is *no* divorce in the Philippines" ... being mostly Catholic ... but it seems that they allow someone to get remarried if their wife or husband stops living with them for 10 years or so ... and I even have a friend who was re-married in the Catholic church when the priests knew full well of the situation.

Living out here makes me see things a bit differently. How is it that a government can force people to have only one spouse? Or any other marital arrangement? I heard, a long time ago, that people with multiple spouses had to divorce all but one in order to get a immigrant visa to America.

 

[sackett]

Excellent post, swstephe

Where is "out here?" Not that I want to winkle out possibly risky information, just curious.

Perhaps your observations about the difficulties of second wives and their children partially answer the question of why many countries enforce monogamy: life can get miserably complicated when a man is allowed to take on multiple family obligations. Let's face it, an awful lot of guys are irresponsible pr**ks who shouldn't be reproducing themselves even once, let alone two or three or seven times.

Perhaps polygyny works best (or as well as it can) in societies where the extended family is the norm, and where male mortality is high. Sounds like a society of tent-dwelling pastoralists, doesn't it? Quite Old Testament in flavor.

Nowadays, the nuclear family is supreme, possibly because industrial society requires so much productive effort of everybody that a bigger type of family isn't economical. When a man is expected -- forced -- to maintain two or more nuclear families in their own digs and maybe even in separate countries, he's bound to be over-extended, with the resulting neglect of Second Wife. (In the U.S., old-time Mormons could tell you plenty about second wives.)

There must be a literature on modern-day polygyny and its stresses. Any sociologists out there?

(Edited twice in thirty seconds to correct some really dum mispellings. Literacy? 'S not my department!)

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Excellent post, swstephe

Perhaps your observations about the difficulties of second wives and their children partially answer the question of why many countries enforce monogamy: life can get miserably complicated when a man is allowed to take on multiple family obligations. Let's face it, an awful lot of guys are irresponsible pr**ks who shouldn't be reproducing themselves even once, let alone two or three or seven times.

Genetically, it's best if men are promiscuous and women chaste (Dawkins, Blackmore). That's not to say that society should be built on such lines; only that such behaviour has the best chance of passing on your genes to the next generation.
All of which is now moot, as we live in the age of the condom, the IUD, and the pill. Recreational sex has changed the reality of Darwinism. Any male has three possibilities: procreate immediately, woo long-term and then bugger off, and woo long-term and stick around to raise the kids. (Woo long-term and then bugger off is never an option, for obvious reasons.)
From the female standpoint, by contrast, playing hard-to-get in order to maximise the likelihood that the male will stick around to raise the kids--i.e., commitment--is the optimum action to take. The resulting dissonance between the Male and the Female is what creates unbalanced societies, just as we've been discussing.
None of which is, however, a moral judgement, as--like I pointed out above--sex is no longer purely for procreation. (As if it ever was; I mean that there is no longer even the risk of pegnancy if one is careful, so we call all sleep easier in our beds--no matter how many women may be in them.)

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Genetically, it's best if men are promiscuous and women chaste (Dawkins, Blackmore).

I had certainly heard that, but I'm not sure if it makes sense. I would reason (this not being my own reasoning) that:

-A female with multiple partners has more resources to draw from, assuming that's fine with all the guys. This could be a biggie.

Corrolary: The offspring of a polyandrous construct would have more parents, which could be a good thing.

-A female with multiple partners will increase the number of genetic combinations in the next generation. This is a good thing, assuming that genetic diversity is good (a fairly sound assumption I think).

-A female with multiple partners is not vulnerable if any one male is an underperformer. Assuming that the males are the providers of course, a female with multiple providers does not have to rely upon a single and possibly unreliable provider.

Corrolary: She can have the other guys thrash anyone who doesn't behave well enough.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I had certainly heard that, but I'm not sure if it makes sense. I would reason (this not being my own reasoning) that:

-A female with multiple partners has more resources to draw from, assuming that's fine with all the guys. This could be a biggie.

Corrolary: The offspring of a polyandrous construct would have more parents, which could be a good thing.

-A female with multiple partners will increase the number of genetic combinations in the next generation. This is a good thing, assuming that genetic diversity is good (a fairly sound assumption I think).

-A female with multiple partners is not vulnerable if any one male is an underperformer. Assuming that the males are the providers of course, a female with multiple providers does not have to rely upon a single and possibly unreliable provider.

Corrolary: She can have the other guys thrash anyone who doesn't behave well enough.

We're talking genetically here. When the object is to pass on to the next generation as many genes as you can, women should be as picky as possible, so that the mate she does finally choose has the best genes (for running, height, athleticism, etc.), which then go into the next generation. Child rearing doesn't come into it.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

We're talking genetically here. When the object is to pass on to the next generation as many genes as you can, women should be as picky as possible, so that the mate she does finally choose has the best genes (for running, height, athleticism, etc.), which then go into the next generation. Child rearing doesn't come into it.

It most certainly does when you account for infant mortality as a function of availible care.

 

[Kimpatsu]

It most certainly does when you account for infant mortality as a function of availible care.

But that's not relevant to passing on one's genes to the next generation. Certainly, one reason women play hard-to-get is to gauge a man's likelihood to commit himself and stick around after the child is born, whereas a man wants to move on and spread his seed around as far as possible. From which standpoint, the father doesn't hang around long enough to see if the infant survives.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

But that's not relevant to passing on one's genes to the next generation. Certainly, one reason women play hard-to-get is to gauge a man's likelihood to commit himself and stick around after the child is born, whereas a man wants to move on and spread his seed around as far as possible. From which standpoint, the father doesn't hang around long enough to see if the infant survives.

A male with genes that "make" him commit to relationships with better availible care for the children will tend to have those genes passed on, since more of them will live. Similarly, polyandrous relationships that utilize males to raise children and reduce mortality will produce more offspring. If there's any genetic component to that behavior, it will be selected for.

Humans are K strategists all the way. Investing in caring better for fewer children is almost certainly wiser than trying to make more. Human children are frail, they take a lot of time to raise, and they're relatively dangerous to produce. Any genetic instict to muster up more help to raise kids will have enormous advantages.

 

[RebeccaBradley]

I did ethnoarchaeological fieldwork in the Sudan in the late 70s and again in the last couple of years, and of course stayed in a number of polygamous Muslim households, mostly far out in the boonies.

From what I saw, co-wives usually got along very well with each other – in fact, they often operated as a kind of coalition to “manage” their joint husband, who was rarely given a chance to be a tyrant. And, far from competing for his sexual attention, the co-wives often welcomed having somebody else around to share the burden of sex, as it were.

The economic situation was also pretty complex, in that the husband was rarely the sole source of support; the wives generally had animals or cultivations of their own, or made pottery for sale, or engaged in some form of trade, and had a fair amount of control over household finances. The whole system was a lot more complicated - and benign - than it might look like from the outside.

(So sad about the current horrors in Darfur.)

 

[Kimpatsu]

A male with genes that "make" him commit to relationships with better availible care for the children will tend to have those genes passed on, since more of them will live. Similarly, polyandrous relationships that utilize males to raise children and reduce mortality will produce more offspring. If there's any genetic component to that behavior, it will be selected for. .

Actually, a male with genes for conning a more caring male into caring for his (the con artist's) children will pass on more of his genes. That's how cuckoos work.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Actually, a male with genes for conning a more caring male into caring for his (the con artist's) children will pass on more of his genes. That's how cuckoos work.

Hmmm... parental parasitism.

I can't imagine it working long on a grand scale within a species.

 

[Sandy M]

After reading J. Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven," I came away with the impression that these days, most fundamentalist Mormon, exclusive commmunity-type polygamy is just an excuse for pedophilia. Many of the "wives" are the daughters of earlier wives. They marry one woman in a legal ceremony, then add the others as spiritual wives .... and collect AFDC!!!

 

[Kimpatsu]

Hmmm... parental parasitism.

I can't imagine it working long on a grand scale within a species.

There are a variety of tricks that selfish exploiters use to make sure that they are the ones to benefit, normally at the expense of others. Dawkins describes this phenomenon in depth in The Selfish Gene. (Highly recommended.)

 

[neutrino_cannon]

There are a variety of tricks that selfish exploiters use to make sure that they are the ones to benefit, normally at the expense of others. Dawkins describes this phenomenon in depth in The Selfish Gene. (Highly recommended.)

I intend to get into Dawkins as soon as a number of personal semi-crisises are dealt with, and I've hacked my way through the pile of Gould I've got.