Slashdot Mirror
Research Suggests Polygamous Men Live Longer
Calopteryx writes "Want to live a little longer? Get a second wife. A study reported in New Scientist suggests that men from polygamous cultures outlive those from monogamous ones. After accounting for socioeconomic differences, men aged over 60 from 140 countries that practice polygamy to varying degrees lived on average 12% longer than men from 49 mostly monogamous nations."
Men who are comfortable having multiple wives have no problems telling the in-laws to stuff it.
knowing that if she naggs to much or decides to cut off the sex, you will walk down the hall to the other wife tends, to make this a non issue.
Women compete naturally against each other.. here is an example.
She is being such a b*tch today.. you should come stay with me, I would never be like that. Flip sides repeat.
Hell look at Hugh Hefner.
love the taste, hate the texture
Getting a decent shag out of a man is hard enough without having to share him with other women.
It could be a nice way to live, or it could be really awful. It entirely depends on the circumstances.
In fact, it's very much like prostitution (not very surprisingly.)
If a woman *wants* to be in a polygamous relationship, well, why should we stop her? The government has no business legislating morality.
If a woman doesn't want to, well, she shouldn't have to, and nobody's making her get married (we presume, maybe optimistically.) So that's fine, too.
But here's the problem: what do you, as The State, do, when a group of people are raising their children and educating them that the way they live is the Right Way -- when that Right Way may seem harmful to people who aren't in that culture?
Hence the arguments over deaf people who don't want their children who can hear, to learn speech, because it would cut them off from the deaf sign language community (I've heard people argue this.) Or cultures or groups who cut off womens' genitals, or The Family, who encouraged their (often very young) female members to go sleep with wealthy men to get them to join the church.
There's a line to be drawn. Obviously, we all draw a line at voluntary vs. coercive behavior. But the much trickier problem is where we draw the line when it comes to educating children so they'll grow up making choices that seem, to them, to be voluntary, but seem to outsiders to be coerced.
I think a main reason homeschooling is so attractive to many people is because this gives them the ability to do exactly this: raise their kids with a restricted information set so the kids will be much less likely to make choices the parents don't like. I also think that's precisely why the FLDS got raided: because The State decided they were raising their children in an environment designed to make the children accept what The State viewed as systematic abuse.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Being faithful to one partner could be a sign of respect for that person. It could be a sacrifice willingly made to get the benefits of a partner's full attention and devotion. It could be a practical way to insure that a stable and pleasant home life stays stable and pleasant. It could be a demonstration to your kids that in order to have somebody sacrifice for you, you must first sacrifice for them. It might be a way to prevent getting cuckolded or raising another man's child (what's good for the goose...). Or you might just love the person so much that hurting them isn't worth a few hours of pleasure.
There are a lot of reasons to be faithful to one person. You need to stop letting the Christian church define everything for you.