There are arguments in evolutionary theory that hold women seek partners that are best able to provide for themselves and their offspring. This means that a wealthy man might be able to provide more for multiple wives and children than can a poor man, even with a single wife. However sharing a man with other women creates issues between the wives, their status, access to the man and his resources, etc. Socially many western countries are legally against the practice, although it does hapen in a number of cultures. Since we are often in denial of our biological imperatives, or do not understand them, I am curious to see what women think about a choice (if offered) like this.

Imagine the scenario as being something extreme, like the 2nd wife of Brad Pitt, and although junior to Angelina, still entitled to his status, body and resources. Or being the only wife of a dirt poor man, who is barely able to sustain his family, due to lack of ability, status, resources etc.

Also curious to see what men would do in similar scenarios. Share Angelina with Brad, or have a wife all to oneself?

Hypothetical situation with hypothetical answers. In other words, what women will say here and what they would actually do given the opportunity are two different things.

BTW why ask only women? Because for men it does not make sense to share same wife?

You make it sound as though women are never bread winners in relationships.

Against Polygamy because I would be a jealous wife. I don't like sharing.

Having more than one husband would be almost irrelevant to producing offspring seeing the woman could only possibly be pregnant every 9-10months. More men just means...more fun? The only benefit I can see is a large income if they're all employed which leads onto many other material things...

- That being said with the Brad scenario would really be up to the couple together to include another wife into the family. I don't think angelina would be open to sharing? ;p

tuco wrote:Hypothetical situation with hypothetical answers. In other words, what women will say here and what they would actually do given the opportunity are two different things.

BTW why ask only women? Because for men it does not make sense to share same wife?

My last sentence asked for the flip side as well. I said this

Also curious to see what men would do in similar scenarios. Share Angelina with Brad, or have a wife all to oneself?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:You make it sound as though women are never bread winners in relationships.

I said nothing about the breadwinner - just asked if women would choose to share a wealthy man as opposed to being an only for a poor man. So no implied messages from my side. Why did you read this into the OP?

TMB wrote:

Imagine the scenario as being something extreme, like the 2nd wife of Brad Pitt, and although junior to Angelina, still entitled to his status, body and resources. Or being the only wife of a dirt poor man, who is barely able to sustain his family, due to lack of ability, status, resources etc.

Sorry if this doesn't fit in with biology, but I come "junior" to no one, not even Brad himself. I was the only breadwinner in my household for a very long time and I coped perfectly well without a man of any status.

I don't understand a lot that goes on in this sociology section but you do realise it's 2010?

Edit to change philosophy to sociology. Not quite so intimidating in the sociology section

Paula1, you said,

Sorry if this doesn't fit in with biology, but I come "junior" to no one, not even Brad himself. I was the only breadwinner in my household for a very long time and I coped perfectly well without a man of any status.

So you are unable to choose between the scenario I proposed? Does this mean that you want neither scenario, and would choose to be a sole breadwinner as your preference?

I don't understand a lot that goes on in this sociology section but you do realise it's 2010?

Are you suggesting that in 2010, our biology no longer dictates our behaviour, or that human society has evolved to the point that no woman would choose a man based upon their status and capability. I accept that there are political aspects in this scenario that make rational evaluation difficult but we should not shy away in the face of this.

Edit to change philosophy to sociology. Not quite so intimidating in the sociology section

This appears to be a riddle of some sort. I give up, what does it mean?

anthroban wrote:The other guys could satisfy her emotional needs, and when she wants fantastic sex she could be with me.

Fantastic sex without emotion? Yeah, right...

anthroban wrote:I'd go for polygamy as a male. I could go for a multiple male single female situation as well - I hate relationships with all that emotional stuff. I'd see it as an opportunity to get what I want. The other guys could satisfy her emotional needs, and when she wants fantastic sex she could be with me. This works equally well for a multiple male, multiple women situation.

What if the wife did not consider sex with you to be fantastic, and decided that she would get better with another male and relegated you to other roles in the relationship? The critical factor in these scenarios is the acceptance from all member of the group. Polgamy history shows that its very rare to find multiple husbands serving one wife, while the inverse has occured many times, even today it occurs and is well accepted in the group by both the men and women. Male jealousy appears to be a major stumbling block for multiple males, one female.

LIFE wrote:

anthroban wrote:The other guys could satisfy her emotional needs, and when she wants fantastic sex she could be with me.

Fantastic sex without emotion? Yeah, right...

You mean porn isn't real?!

The obvious difference is that ultimately the goal is to reproduce and given that a woman can only have a baby once every 9 months there is little to gain for the men if she has several on the go. Setting aside the baby issue I don't think men particually like the thought of sharing a women (Sloppy seconds and all that jazz ) unless she was wealthy and she provided them with money and suchlike so that they didn't have to work and could just enjoy themselves which is the situation a mother finds herself in when she has several dependent sons.

So men can share the love of a women when its their mother (As there is no reproductive aspect in that relationship, expect in hillbilly land) but they probably won't share the love (And imtimacy) of a women when its a partner, possibly because the chance of a reproductive return is pretty low. Yes I know there is more to a relationship than just having babies but its a pretty strong drive and the whole reason we bother we them in the first place.

TMB wrote:

[snip]

Polygamy history shows that its very rare to find multiple husbands serving one wife, while the inverse has occured many times, even today it occurs and is well accepted in the group by both the men and women. Male jealousy appears to be a major stumbling block for multiple males, one female.

The claim about male jealousy is a pretty strong claim. While history indeed shows what you describe, personally, I would account multiple wives serving one husband mainly to other factors than jealousy. Men traditionally act as providers and women as caretakers.

In hunter-gatherer societies it made sense for physically stronger men to hunt, and for women to care. Till today we see and understand "profit" in form of hunting rather than taking care, which upon closer examination is a bit inaccurate notion, despite we could claim that without hunting there could be no caring. Who is more "valuable" Wall Street banker or a nurse?

If this assumption, about providers and caretakers, is true, and if we agree that arrangements between men and women were historically, aside from religious practices, defined mainly by "economic" efficiency, we can see that jealousy is not paramount to polygamy, despite the known biological imperatives introduced by evolutionary biology/psychology.

Of course, we can debate it senseless as nobody can prove either position.


edit: As usual I will mention that institution of marriage as a relic from our past should be abolished, people should be left to form whatever arrangements they please without state interference.

Tuco, you said,

The claim about male jealousy is a pretty strong claim. While history indeed shows what you describe, personally, I would account multiple wives serving one husband mainly to other factors than jealousy. Men traditionally act as providers and women as caretakers.

Jealousy is just a symptom and acts as a mechanism to discourage men from behaving in ways that cause jealousy. The logic is that as we seek to propagate our genes and provide resources to promote their survival, a male needs to be careful that he is not providing resources for offspring for another male. Females do not have the same issues of maternity as males do for paternity, if they carried the offspring it must be half their genes, regardless of which male fathered. Research shows that male jealousy is justified and a surprisingly high number of men are not the genetic fathers of their children, yet they unknowingly support them. The scenario for women is different, jealousy of a rival is that they will divert resources away from them and their offspring, hence its been common to see powerful men with multiple wives/harems etc. Even in 2010, you see women being drawn to celebrity males, very willing to have sex with someone they only know as powerful and high status. Their sensation of loving them is the attraction that there is for powerful males. Men on the other hand, do not look for quality as women do, they look for quantity. Sperm is a small investment, spread it around as much as possible and try get another male to raise the offspring. Women have a high investment in the egg, 9 months gestation, and then a few more years. However human males do have significant parental investment in their children in todays society, which means competition between women is also very keen.

In hunter-gatherer societies it made sense for physically stronger men to hunt, and for women to care. Till today we see and understand "profit" in form of hunting rather than taking care, which upon closer examination is a bit inaccurate notion, despite we could claim that without hunting there could be no caring. Who is more "valuable" Wall Street banker or a nurse?

Its about status, just the measures have changed. Celebrity males attract females, from pop stars to businessmen, politicians, actors – the groupie phenomenon is biased toward male celebrity. The other way around is less marked, males will gladly seek the company of a low status female, their measure is based upon physical health and youth, loosely called ‘beauty’ in our terms

If this assumption, about providers and caretakers, is true, and if we agree that arrangements between men and women were historically, aside from religious practices, defined mainly by "economic" efficiency, we can see that jealousy is not paramount to polygamy, despite the known biological imperatives introduced by evolutionary biology/psychology.

Economics is a later expression of the ability to stay in control. In order to ensure propagation of genes you need to have some level of control, over prey, predators and competitors, this includes other humans. If physical prowess was the means to measure it in the stoneage , today it could be your ability to perform on stage and screen. Either way it measures the ability to elevate social status, and the higher the status the better chances for offspring (and genetic) survival.

Male jealousy appears to be a major stumbling block for multiple males, one female.

I do not think it is and none can prove, by what you call logic, either way.

Other than that, tell me something I do not know. I know popular science works and hypothesis of R. Wright, M. Ridley, R. Trivers, R. Dawkins, or E.O. Wilson. Today, in the so called developed world we can observe what is called demographic transition which is said to have "economic" causes and which is yet to be explained from the point of view of evolutionary biology in satisfactory manner, however, it does show that reproductive decision making is driven by a human psychology - is not written in stone. There are people who cannot have or do not even want to have offspring, and for such people the "logic of jealousy" as you put it does not have to be a major stumbling block.

Not so long ago someone posted this:

E.O. Wilson Proposes New Theory of Social Evolution - http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... nged/all/1

and from where I sit the jury is still out.

Fuck that! I don't share dick with any other woman so polygamy is out of the question. I'll take the dirt poor guy. With my resources added to the household, we could make it work.

Tuco, you said,

do not think it is and none can prove, by what you call logic, either way.

I understand the assertion you are making, I was hoping for some logic to back it up.

Other than that, tell me something I do not know. I know popular science works and hypothesis of R. Wright, M. Ridley, R. Trivers, R. Dawkins, or E.O. Wilson.

Regardless of naming others, I would be interested in seeing your personal rebuttal of my points, and something to support a counter.

Today, in the so called developed world we can observe what is called demographic transition which is said to have "economic" causes and which is yet to be explained from the point of view of evolutionary biology in satisfactory manner, however, it does show that reproductive decision making is driven by a human psychology - is not written in stone.

Its possible that nothing is written in stone bar perhaps the most basic drive of all life. Economics is just an effect of a more basic cause. We are observing a very small passage of evolutionary time in human economics, and evolution is simply that which has fitness for survival, regardless of what it is. If it enables living things to remain living, and to replicate heritable traits, then its fitness. That humans involve their brains, admittedly to a small extent, in their sexual behaviour, does not mean the drivers do not exist. The fact that we strive for life, is just a self fulfilling facet of life, and it has us firmly in its grip. Likewise with sexual desire – this is biology. The fact that some people commit suicide, while others follow chaste lifestyles or are childless, does not mean these drivers are absent or being overcome by human intellect, they are all facets of the same process.

There are people who cannot have or do not even want to have offspring, and for such people the "logic of jealousy" as you put it does not have to be a major stumbling block.

Jealousy is a proximate mechanism as opposed to a distal mechanism like trying to reproduce. This means that the proximate mechanism to ensure species survival is an interest in sex itself, the distal mechanism is a desire to propagate your genes. People do not pursue sex as a conscious means to ensure their genes survive – they just want to get laid, and this is overlain with all the layers of romance, lust and love that dog us. Examine just what jealousy is. Why should a man be jealous of another man because they are sleeping with their wife? Not everyone feels it but it is widely prevalent and most societies recognise this, and usually have mechanisms in place to manage this. This does not negate the underlying principle behind parental investment differences between males and females, neither does it collapse because of what we see in sexual and economic behaviour in the modern world. This is all just detail on the overall map of human psychology, and it is that which evolved and does obey some very primal laws.

Not so long ago someone posted this:

E.O. Wilson Proposes New Theory of Social Evolution - http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... nged/all/1

and from where I sit the jury is still out.

That is an interesting article, however its still evolution and does not negate male jealousy as one of the drivers for human behavior. As the article points out, human interaction is complicated by our primitive consciousness and explaining our ‘aberrations’ from the dumbed down versions of EP that get applied in popular science books, or National Geo documentaries, as something other than sexual selection is not supported by the evidence. The real issue is the debate in EP circles around kin selection and group selection. Dawkins maintains that selection happens at the gene level, while others argue that it can happen at the colony or group level. Both sides seem to be missing the wood for the trees, as the incompatibility is mostly political.

Man .. I am not much into these "quoting" battles. Usually, I just post my opinion, take it or leave it. If you do not see any "logic" in what I consider as primary reason for historic prevalence of polygyny then there is no way I can convince you otherwise. To me the "economic" reasons, stated clearly above, are superior to "jealousy", however, since the reasons for polygamy are likely multi-factorial as many other phenomena of human behavior, what we debate is "major stumbling block" vs "minor stumbling block".

"Economics", not only in the traditional sense but in much border sense of acquiring resources in animal kingdom, is paramount, especially in environment with scarce and finite resources, to fitness, and fitness is essential for survival. For females it makes sense to get impregnated by as many "equally" fit males as possible, but we do see that happening because females are rarely, if ever, "economically" independent of males - if nothing else, they need males to protect territories where resources are gathered. In situation when they do not need males for nothing else but reproduction, I do not see why they should stick to the traditional ways of forming relationships, less so to polygyny.

If humans are not "hardwired" for one type of reproductive strategy, and if such strategy is determined mainly by environment, then anything, given the right conditions, is possible to me. Why not to pick this guy because he is handsome, this guy because he is smart, and this guy because he likes kids? Because the guys wont agree to it? I beg to differ. The guys will agree to anything after few drinks :) And no, handsome and smart and who likes kids does not exist, and if he does he is not available simply because women are jealous and possessive too even if it does not make as much sense for them as for men.

Now the argument is: Well, with such reproductive strategy no woman would find a partner, someone willing to take care for her and the kids? Only in situation when she would not be "economically" independent, as if she would, she could take care for herself and the kids then all the guys with their not so infinite amount of sperm could go fuck themselves we know where to ;)

There is a big chance that modern women who take care of themselves without the help of anyone will do like men have done so far. So the answer would probably be no.

I have not much evidence to support my though, but I believe that men and women are somewhat hardwired in exactly the same way. They choose between short term benefit (the poor but healthy partner) and long term benefit (the rich, the good father/mother, etc..). And the choice depend a lot on each one's own wealth.

I don't think Paris Hilton is looking for wealthy and supporting man right now...

And also, the polygamy seems only successful in society where women depend on the wealth of the men.

The only real difference I can see is that men somewhat need to support dependent women if they want children, where women don't. This cause a different outcome in the end that influence what is socially accepted. The women tend to be a lot more eager to run away whenever the partner is having issue. While the men has some social obligation or something like that to take care of his partner.

Women in the other hand seem to have an enhanced social obligation compared to men to take care of the children. Which give an annoying chance for men to do "hit and run" against women able to take care of themselves. Jackass. But I believe some women would do it too if they wouldn't be the one dealing with pregnancy.

In the end, I think there is a certain form of delayed polygamy going on right now in our society. People will often have multiple stable partner through their life, just not at the same time. It's pretty common to see nuclear family that are in fact blended family. It is worth adding that both partner share the same amount of involvement in this polygamy too.

Edit: Seem like there is many hole in what I say, gonna have to rewrite it in a proper way later.

anthroban wrote:I'd go for polygamy as a male. I could go for a multiple male single female situation as well - I hate relationships with all that emotional stuff. I'd see it as an opportunity to get what I want. The other guys could satisfy her emotional needs, and when she wants fantastic sex she could be with me. This works equally well for a multiple male, multiple women situation.

Agreed. As long as I can choose which - ahem - part of each month she spends with me.

TMB wrote:

I don't understand a lot that goes on in this sociology section but you do realise it's 2010?

Are you suggesting that in 2010, our biology no longer dictates our behaviour, or that human society has evolved to the point that no woman would choose a man based upon their status and capability. I accept that there are political aspects in this scenario that make rational evaluation difficult but we should not shy away in the face of this.

I think you need to demonstrate that it is biology which determines this. You also go on to say that status changes depending on circumstances - in other words, "status" just means "things that we like", so when you say that people are attracted to status, you mean that people are attracted to what they like. Presumably, you will view your "theory" as true unless someone can falsify it by presenting you with people who aren't attracted to things they like (i.e. "status").

Your jealousy claims are also flawed. Many females to a single male relationships weren't formed because the females didn't feel jealous of threatened... To suggest so is to ignore the major aspects of history, one of which is the fact that females have generally been treated like second class citizens and forced to do what the males tell them to do. As such, most of the wives of this male probably didn't even like him that much, and "sharing" him would have been a huge advantage as it meant they got to spend more time away from him. The higher order emotion of "jealousy" only occurs when somebody currently possesses something you want.

Generally, our current society has dictated that we be monogamous. We are taught that being "faithful" is an admirable quality, and that spending your life with your "soulmate" is one of the greatest achievements a person could accomplish. A common side effect of this is jealousy, this is why people (male and female) get pissed off when they're cheated on, when their loved ones think about others during sex, and why even mentioning having an open relationship can cause the collapse of most relationships. Gradually this is changing though, with large sections of males enjoying the thought of their significant others being with other men, known as "cuckolding" (and vice versa, but I think men admit to enjoying the idea more than women).

Some other misconceptions in this thread include the idea:
- that behavior is determined by biological "drives" - drive theory died at the beginning of the 1900s. Behavior is very complicated and trying to reduce it to being a function of biological needs, even the most fundamental such as hunger or thirst, inevitably fail (nevermind trying to use abstract concepts such as jealousy or love as drives).
- that "hunter-gatherer" societies existed (most hunting was done by both sexes, as "hunting" usually only entailed setting up traps and picking up the rabbit or whatever afterwards).
- that evolutionary psychology is anywhere near advanced enough to draw any reasonable conclusions on a topic such as this.