Putting morality aside, there are some very compelling practical reasons for our culture’s disdain of polygamy. For one, inter-spousal rivalries can be deadly.
The Australian has the spousal specifics:
THE three widows of Osama bin Laden are turning on each other in custody, with two older Saudi women blaming a much younger Yemeni wife for leading American intelligence to their hideout.
What was Bin Laden thinking? It's tough enough trying to keep one wife happy.
“It’s vicious,” said a Pakistani official briefed on the interrogation of the widows. “The older wives think the younger one tipped off the Americans or was tracked when she came to join him.”
Our sense of sportswomanship is distressed by the idea of two against one. We surmise envy is the root cause. To paraphrase the old ad’s plea, “Don’t hate me because my burqa is beautiful.”
Although the compound where bin Laden hid for five years was large, the three wives were all cooped up in the same house. The older two lived on the second floor and the youngest one on the top. Their husband alternated between them. Pakistani officials who have been debriefing the women portray life in the compound as an Islamic version of Desperate Housewives.
Discriminatory housing practices are certainly problematic. Still, we marvel at Osama’s energy level, climbing 3 stories to service 3 desperate housewives at his age. Considering his porn addiction, where did he even find the time?
Having Navy Seals gunnin’ for him was bad, but intramural warfare in his own hideout must have cinched matters.
Might be enough to make a guy rethink that whole 72 virgins thing.
Has anyone considered that, after being trapped indoor with three wives for six years, he called the SEALS himself?
As they say. Bigamy is one wife too many. Monogamy.. pretty much the same..
Funny.... However, that is not the template of a fundamentalist muslim. Fundamentalist muslims on the top tier like Osama, would value his life over those of his wives, so he would have them killed or abandon them if they got to be too annoying. I think that as long as he had his young wife with him, he really didn't give a crap what the other two were saying or doing in fact he probably told them to shut up or else, so they did. Now he is dead so they get to cluck all they want. Also I am sure he wouldn't want to give Americans the pleasure to get to him, I am sure that he despised the fact that American soldiers caught up to him.
"Bigamy is one [husband] too many. Monogamy.. pretty much the same..." It cuts both ways.
I'm kind of leaning towards a YES vote on polygamy. Or, I guess more specifically, polyandry.
I could have four husbands. One of them is sure to be a good lover (1 out of 4 are pretty good odds, eh?), and the other three could bring in the income to keep me and the kiddies living in the life we would like to be accustomed to.
And there's built-in insurance that if one of my darling hubbies loses his job and has a bit of down-time between paying gigs, the other two would provide a nice steady income to get us past the lean times.
Yes, I'm starting to think this polygamy thing is a good thing.
It may be tempting to think this is awesome, but in all reality I really don't want to deal with nursing four men when they are sick or to nag at them for not fixing things they said they would fix and doing three times the laundry (plus the kids) that I would usually make. It is not worth it.
Ah yes, but with three steady incomes, there's plenty of money for a housekeeper, oui?
Oh, honey.
Yes, one out of four might be good -- but all four would *think* they were the one, and you'd never get a night off. Given how the dating scene is viewed, in order to fill the quota it'd be a Homer Simpson/Al Bundy/Pee Wee Herman/Antonio Banderas thing. After two or three figure out that that they don't have to work -- they can just go fishing while the other one supports them, your problems will have just begun. Four times the normal toilet seat being left up, air fresheners only lasting two or three days.
"Yes, one out of four might be good — but all four would *think* they were the one ..."
LOL! Too true. I didn't factor the enormous male ego into my plan. Thanks for straightening me out.
And RKae, I understand that treating women like cattle is not funny. But if we can't make goat jokes from time to time, the barbarians have won.
FWIW, it's not ego -- it's insecurity.
Sorry. Thumbs down. It ain't cute or funny. It's barbaric and poisonous to civilization.
All I need to know about polygamy I learnt in the Bible. Although G-d had practical reasons (for the women) for allowing it to happen, it is not the ideal situation. Even though it wasn't prohibited He didn't make it about roses and champagne either. Polygamists, even those that He liked, very much suffered a great deal due to their lusts. Someone like David comes to mind. His wives and concubines made his life hell, it cost the dignity of one of his daughters it cost the lives of many of his children. However he brought it upon himself, and so did Solomon when crap hit the fan due to his very many women. G-d love them both, but they made a mistake by giving into their lusts and getting with so many women. The natural world is just that natural, and women will not change and neither will men, that is why it is difficult to live this life. However, aside from morality, religion and G-d's ideals there are serious logistical problems with polygamy that I find difficult to ignore.
I don't spend too much time mulling over "If it's bad why didn't God stop it?" God allows all sorts of barbaric crap to happen in the Old Testament. Heck, he allows barbaric stuff to happen today.
I don't need to wonder about what God thinks of polygamy. I happen to know for a fact that it's disgusting, cruel and primitive. It keeps a society locked in a primitive state, reduces women to the rank of cattle, marginalizes men who choose to be monogamous, and leads to adult-child sex 100% of the time.
Alright, however your knowledge doesn't invalidate my opinion correct? Also my opinion didn't include anything about how it is bad and questioning as to why G-d is not stopping it. Not at all. That wasn't part of my discourse. My point is that polygamy is not the norm, it is actually abnormal. My point is just that there was a point to it at one point in time, however even then (like now) it is still abnormal and not optimal for society.
Points taken.
But there never is (or was) a point to it, other than control of men over women. It doesn't increase a society's birth rate (as some people like to suggest). It only shallows out the gene pool.
In order to understand the reasoning behind its existence and G-d's silence on the issue (especially when it all went to Hell when men He loved partook in polygamy), I did some research on ancient polygamy*. It was interesting. Of the many points there was a point to be made about women being spoils of war and also women during natural disasters (famine is one good example).
After warfare, there were a lot of virgin women, not so virgin women and widows left behind. This was also the case for women during famines. Men would leave to find work and food elsewhere (many times not coming back at all). Many of these women did not have male relatives to take care of them either. If they didn't attach themselves to a respectable (and wealthy enough) male their ability to take care of themselves was very limited. They could work the fields like Ruth did or they could go into prostitution. It is only the fortunate to have a wealthy estate that had more options, that obviously wasn't the norm back then. Ruth was fortunate to have an ideal husband so soon after arriving in Israel, many women wouldn't be that fortunate so they would opt for prostitution instead of working the field. There is something to be said about them being lazy or not being apt for hard labor or society condemning women working outside the home.
The Lord then (according to my research) would probably prefer a woman to marry into a home and be taken care of, instead of being a prostitute as the Lord makes it quite clear that harlotry is disgusting to Him. However, with that said polygamy is a symptom of a problem it is not a true solution. So polygamy would be the lesser of two evils.
Polygamy though is not ideal. Ancient societies made women less than nothing unless they had a very wealthy and very nice Daddy to leave them some money. Or a rich husband that died and left them in good standing. If women had the options then that we do now (and if they and men were much more attached to G-d in my opinion), the women would chose the Ruth option and work most of the time knowing that they could make a good living in society and keep their dignity. I believe that the ideal is for the woman to work and to be commendable in society and thus attract an appropriate male who is also a worker and commendable in society. If he says "stop working I have enough for both of us and future children" she can stop working. Unfortunately the ideal is not always attainable either because of lusts, laziness, sin, warfare, famines and so on and so forth.
I would rather die working myself to the bone than to be in a polygamous situation, however back then I wonder if I would have had an option depending on the situation. I would like to believe that I would never chose harlotry and if the situation was bad and working was not an option for some reason (there is a famine for example) and there is no prospect of ideal marriage, polygamy would be then the only other option available. However that is not the case for women anymore, regardless of what is happening, civilized societies will have other options for women.
* Contemporary polygamy is disgusting. Islamic, Mormon, secular whatever the case may be. Considering our times polygamy has no place in any civilized society. It is actually in my opinion lazy for a woman to engage in it willingly and it is lustful for a man to do it. There is no need for a man or a woman to engage in polygamy.
I bet you could put a she-goat in a burka a there'd be some muslim male right there to take advantage of it. I knew there were going to be domestic squabbles between wife number one and wives two, three, and four, my arabic instructors told me so, especially the muslim ones. It's funny that the wives think they had something to do with OBL getting whacked by the Navy SEALs, I mean, women in muslim society have such lofty and powerful roles to play and all! Sheesh! I am more than happy with the one wife I have!
"I bet you could put a she-goat in a burka a there’d be some muslim male right there to take advantage of it. "
I'll bet you that she-goat in a burka and raise you a "who-cares-if-da-goat's-a-she-goat-or-a-he-goat - I'm-a-goner-for-a-hairy-ankle".
As Rodney Dangerfield said about a menage a trois...
Why would I want to disappoint two women
Guess this meets the definition of a tripple bagger, in case the first 2 bags break!
Do you think any of them played "guess who's behind the burka" just to F%@# with Osama?
Not if they wanted to keep their noses!
Whenever I see those FLDS polygamists being interviewed, I’m amazed that they make these two statements EVERY DAMNED TIME: 1.) “Well, men are naturally polygamous.” 2.) “Sure, the wives get jealous, but they have to overcome that and it makes them better people.”
So… men should surrender to their natural urges, but women should overcome their natural urges? Huh?
And the idiot “journalists” never call them on this line of crap! Nope. Anderson Cooper, Oprah, whoever's doing the interview, they’re just too delighted that they can assist in the knocking down of a sexual taboo. They don’t want anything to interfere with that. They're too busy giggling about sex, sex, sex to worry about the effect on what used to be civilization.
View Comments (21)
Has anyone considered that, after being trapped indoor with three wives for six years, he called the SEALS himself?
As they say. Bigamy is one wife too many. Monogamy.. pretty much the same..
Funny.... However, that is not the template of a fundamentalist muslim. Fundamentalist muslims on the top tier like Osama, would value his life over those of his wives, so he would have them killed or abandon them if they got to be too annoying. I think that as long as he had his young wife with him, he really didn't give a crap what the other two were saying or doing in fact he probably told them to shut up or else, so they did. Now he is dead so they get to cluck all they want. Also I am sure he wouldn't want to give Americans the pleasure to get to him, I am sure that he despised the fact that American soldiers caught up to him.
"Bigamy is one [husband] too many. Monogamy.. pretty much the same..." It cuts both ways.
I'm kind of leaning towards a YES vote on polygamy. Or, I guess more specifically, polyandry.
I could have four husbands. One of them is sure to be a good lover (1 out of 4 are pretty good odds, eh?), and the other three could bring in the income to keep me and the kiddies living in the life we would like to be accustomed to.
And there's built-in insurance that if one of my darling hubbies loses his job and has a bit of down-time between paying gigs, the other two would provide a nice steady income to get us past the lean times.
Yes, I'm starting to think this polygamy thing is a good thing.
It may be tempting to think this is awesome, but in all reality I really don't want to deal with nursing four men when they are sick or to nag at them for not fixing things they said they would fix and doing three times the laundry (plus the kids) that I would usually make. It is not worth it.
Ah yes, but with three steady incomes, there's plenty of money for a housekeeper, oui?
Oh, honey.
Yes, one out of four might be good -- but all four would *think* they were the one, and you'd never get a night off. Given how the dating scene is viewed, in order to fill the quota it'd be a Homer Simpson/Al Bundy/Pee Wee Herman/Antonio Banderas thing. After two or three figure out that that they don't have to work -- they can just go fishing while the other one supports them, your problems will have just begun. Four times the normal toilet seat being left up, air fresheners only lasting two or three days.
"Yes, one out of four might be good — but all four would *think* they were the one ..."
LOL! Too true. I didn't factor the enormous male ego into my plan. Thanks for straightening me out.
And RKae, I understand that treating women like cattle is not funny. But if we can't make goat jokes from time to time, the barbarians have won.
FWIW, it's not ego -- it's insecurity.
Sorry. Thumbs down. It ain't cute or funny. It's barbaric and poisonous to civilization.
All I need to know about polygamy I learnt in the Bible. Although G-d had practical reasons (for the women) for allowing it to happen, it is not the ideal situation. Even though it wasn't prohibited He didn't make it about roses and champagne either. Polygamists, even those that He liked, very much suffered a great deal due to their lusts. Someone like David comes to mind. His wives and concubines made his life hell, it cost the dignity of one of his daughters it cost the lives of many of his children. However he brought it upon himself, and so did Solomon when crap hit the fan due to his very many women. G-d love them both, but they made a mistake by giving into their lusts and getting with so many women. The natural world is just that natural, and women will not change and neither will men, that is why it is difficult to live this life. However, aside from morality, religion and G-d's ideals there are serious logistical problems with polygamy that I find difficult to ignore.
I don't spend too much time mulling over "If it's bad why didn't God stop it?" God allows all sorts of barbaric crap to happen in the Old Testament. Heck, he allows barbaric stuff to happen today.
I don't need to wonder about what God thinks of polygamy. I happen to know for a fact that it's disgusting, cruel and primitive. It keeps a society locked in a primitive state, reduces women to the rank of cattle, marginalizes men who choose to be monogamous, and leads to adult-child sex 100% of the time.
Alright, however your knowledge doesn't invalidate my opinion correct? Also my opinion didn't include anything about how it is bad and questioning as to why G-d is not stopping it. Not at all. That wasn't part of my discourse. My point is that polygamy is not the norm, it is actually abnormal. My point is just that there was a point to it at one point in time, however even then (like now) it is still abnormal and not optimal for society.
Points taken.
But there never is (or was) a point to it, other than control of men over women. It doesn't increase a society's birth rate (as some people like to suggest). It only shallows out the gene pool.
In order to understand the reasoning behind its existence and G-d's silence on the issue (especially when it all went to Hell when men He loved partook in polygamy), I did some research on ancient polygamy*. It was interesting. Of the many points there was a point to be made about women being spoils of war and also women during natural disasters (famine is one good example).
After warfare, there were a lot of virgin women, not so virgin women and widows left behind. This was also the case for women during famines. Men would leave to find work and food elsewhere (many times not coming back at all). Many of these women did not have male relatives to take care of them either. If they didn't attach themselves to a respectable (and wealthy enough) male their ability to take care of themselves was very limited. They could work the fields like Ruth did or they could go into prostitution. It is only the fortunate to have a wealthy estate that had more options, that obviously wasn't the norm back then. Ruth was fortunate to have an ideal husband so soon after arriving in Israel, many women wouldn't be that fortunate so they would opt for prostitution instead of working the field. There is something to be said about them being lazy or not being apt for hard labor or society condemning women working outside the home.
The Lord then (according to my research) would probably prefer a woman to marry into a home and be taken care of, instead of being a prostitute as the Lord makes it quite clear that harlotry is disgusting to Him. However, with that said polygamy is a symptom of a problem it is not a true solution. So polygamy would be the lesser of two evils.
Polygamy though is not ideal. Ancient societies made women less than nothing unless they had a very wealthy and very nice Daddy to leave them some money. Or a rich husband that died and left them in good standing. If women had the options then that we do now (and if they and men were much more attached to G-d in my opinion), the women would chose the Ruth option and work most of the time knowing that they could make a good living in society and keep their dignity. I believe that the ideal is for the woman to work and to be commendable in society and thus attract an appropriate male who is also a worker and commendable in society. If he says "stop working I have enough for both of us and future children" she can stop working. Unfortunately the ideal is not always attainable either because of lusts, laziness, sin, warfare, famines and so on and so forth.
I would rather die working myself to the bone than to be in a polygamous situation, however back then I wonder if I would have had an option depending on the situation. I would like to believe that I would never chose harlotry and if the situation was bad and working was not an option for some reason (there is a famine for example) and there is no prospect of ideal marriage, polygamy would be then the only other option available. However that is not the case for women anymore, regardless of what is happening, civilized societies will have other options for women.
* Contemporary polygamy is disgusting. Islamic, Mormon, secular whatever the case may be. Considering our times polygamy has no place in any civilized society. It is actually in my opinion lazy for a woman to engage in it willingly and it is lustful for a man to do it. There is no need for a man or a woman to engage in polygamy.
I bet you could put a she-goat in a burka a there'd be some muslim male right there to take advantage of it. I knew there were going to be domestic squabbles between wife number one and wives two, three, and four, my arabic instructors told me so, especially the muslim ones. It's funny that the wives think they had something to do with OBL getting whacked by the Navy SEALs, I mean, women in muslim society have such lofty and powerful roles to play and all! Sheesh! I am more than happy with the one wife I have!
"I bet you could put a she-goat in a burka a there’d be some muslim male right there to take advantage of it. "
I'll bet you that she-goat in a burka and raise you a "who-cares-if-da-goat's-a-she-goat-or-a-he-goat - I'm-a-goner-for-a-hairy-ankle".
As Rodney Dangerfield said about a menage a trois...
Why would I want to disappoint two women
Guess this meets the definition of a tripple bagger, in case the first 2 bags break!
Do you think any of them played "guess who's behind the burka" just to F%@# with Osama?
Not if they wanted to keep their noses!
Whenever I see those FLDS polygamists being interviewed, I’m amazed that they make these two statements EVERY DAMNED TIME: 1.) “Well, men are naturally polygamous.” 2.) “Sure, the wives get jealous, but they have to overcome that and it makes them better people.”
So… men should surrender to their natural urges, but women should overcome their natural urges? Huh?
And the idiot “journalists” never call them on this line of crap! Nope. Anderson Cooper, Oprah, whoever's doing the interview, they’re just too delighted that they can assist in the knocking down of a sexual taboo. They don’t want anything to interfere with that. They're too busy giggling about sex, sex, sex to worry about the effect on what used to be civilization.
Monogamy = Civilization.