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."
In seriousness, I'm not surprised. From living this way for a while, I see a lot less stress on all parties most of the time. When there is stress, it's easier to deal with as you have a stronger close-knit support structure.
The most obvious explanation is that only the "fittest" men get to have multiple wives in the first place. They'll tend to be richer, and rich men live longer. They said they accounted for socioeconomic differences, but might it also be that physically fit men lived longer and attracted more wives?
I'm sure they tried to control for that and a host of other factors, but I'd really need to see the original paper to understand their work.
The selection bias of polygamous men (mentioned already here) for richer and healthier persons over those who die younger likely explains the differences enough, but, in addition, it's long been known that widowers have a reduced lifespan. It's likely that the survival of the second wife protects against that reduction somewhat.
They live longer because they work hard, eat well, and don't watch much TV.
TV is the source of gov't manipulation, and by extension, satan. And while polyg's don't mind defrauding the welfare system and getting money FROM the gov't, they distance themselves thoroughly from gov't control.
They also have the most well-behaved kids you will EVER see in a Walmart. Make Hamish kids look like the Courtney Love.
THL phish sticks
I'm polyamorous and have a long-term girlfriend in addition to a wife of over a decade. It's been my experience that in the short term, there's a huge amount of stress and a substantial load of emotional processing involved (as my gf is fond of saying to people, "imagine what happens when both women have PMS at the same time"). But in the long term I expect there's probably more benefits than costs, both because of the added emotional support, and because adapting to multiple people forces one to be substantially more honest (thus reducing the stress of the compartmentalizing which we all do unconsciously) and to simplify one's life.
Women I know who have multiple male partners seem to have it a bit easier in the short run, since most men are, let's face it, fairly simple creatures. Long run, I'm not so sure about, for exactly the same reason (i.e., men being simple creatures).
Women are social creatures, when its just a single husband and wife sitting at home the wife needs someone to talk to about all the mundane or pointless things going on. (ie: gossip)
Most guys just learn to "block out the chatter", but it eventually wears on them and gets annoying.
Add another female to the household and instantly they bond with each other and have another person of the same sex to talk to pretty much 24/7. This can only be a benefit for everyone involved.
Not to mention but chances are the guy is having more sex, and I've seen several studies say that having more sex prolongs your life. (to a certain point anyways)
Not having to listen to as much annoying gossip and having more sex, thats pretty much a dream come true, who wouldn't want to live longer? :)
....that if my husband tries to have another wife he most certainly will not live longer. He might very well not live to see another sunrise. Now, when is the study starting to see how long women with multiple male partners live?
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
On the other hand, I have heard the following saying:
"Most women would rather have one-tenth of a first-rate man than all of a second rate one."
Females tend to be very attuned to the capabilities of their mates, and let's be clear that while women may have been effectively chattel, you cannot have that situation without at least some (perhaps unconscious) complicity from them. Females certainly have their own will and if, as a group, they were resistant to sharing a male, you better believe that they could seriously curtail that practice over time, even if they lack external trappings of power.
I think the modern tendency for a woman to have only one man is not that women have been "freed" so much as many *men* today have the freedom to live their lives in such a way that they have opportunities themselves. There is significantly less warfare in developed countries and more education. That means that any given man can be a suitable candidate for any woman. Obviously, allowing women to have more choice in the matter is important in this trend, but there is nothing to say that a free woman wouldn't choose to be a co-wife, given a certain environment like that of less developed countries. The patriarchal details and terminology may change, but the reality may not.
Well, Ernest Borgnine says I only need to masturbate a lot to live a long time. And I believe him because he was in both "Escape from New York" *AND* "Baseketball."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Well,I actually watched a show on a family from the Mormon sect that still practices multiple wives,and the women were even happier about it than the men. You see it was like this,the wife that didn't want to be tied to the housework was able to get an education and become a paralegal,while the other three who were quite happy to be stay at home moms raised the young ones and took care of the house. All four said it was so wonderful how if one of them was sick,or just feeling wore down and needed a break,the others would give her a weekend "mini-vacation" and would take up the slack.
They did everything from breast feeding to carpooling together and by dividing the workload they were able to raise their 6 kids with nobody getting over stressed. They even had a "loving schedule" which allowed them to swap days between each other depending on who was feeling amorous or not in the mood. They were quite the model of efficiency,but of course with 4 wives and soon to be 7 kids you'd pretty much have to be. So despite the idea that it is a "mans paradise" women can be quite happy with the arrangement if they all get along.
What stuck the show in my mind was that the 3 wives were the ones who actually brought in the fourth. The husband wasn't actually keen on the idea at first. Two of them had a high school girlfriend who lost her husband(cancer I believe) and they invited her to stay with them and helped her to grieve. After awhile the 3 got together and said basically "Why don't we keep her?" and hooked her up with their husband. At the time of the show she was 7 months pregnant with their seventh child,which was her first. Seemed like a nice way to live to me. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Well polygamhy has one obvious consequence, I wonder why no-one mentioned it before. There are about as many men as women, certainly at the age where they normally marry.
Therefore even minimal polygamy must mean that a lot of men end up without any woman at all. And not voluntary at all.
And if you think this makes women better off, polygamy makes them replaceable. Easily replaceable I might add.
It also necessitates guarding said women. After all, a lot of very young men will be without options for getting any woman at all.
Perhaps that's why they keep blowing themselves up ?
Any reliable wife will tell you that what she needs most on any given day is a wife. We compensate for monogamy by hiring wives for our wives; house cleaners, babysitters, daycare, diaper service, food delivery. Also, by living (well in the US) in a throw-away technical society we have striped away the need to make or repair clothes (sewing), prepare complex meals (eating out), corresponding (email, phone) and many other things that women "had" to do or felt needed to be done in a proper society.
My wife and I, married almost 14 years and with two kids, have discussed "getting" (not sure how to put it) a second wife. She's not opposed to it, understands it completely, but we haven't had a chance to try it yet. Since we live sustainably and don't take advantage of the many means to rent a wife, we don't really have much choice except to look for help. If you are going to use a woman that way, then you should support her, I feel. Renting is just a way to use something and throw it away, in the end. And paying for services that a woman could do herself is expensive the realm of the rich.
I don't know how having two wives would make me live longer as such, never gave it any thought, but it would reduce how much I worry about our family economy if I had two wives working as sisters to hold everything together, get back to simpler ways of doing things by hand and without technology. Homeschooling, food preparation and gardening are suddenly easier. My wife works so hard... she needs a wife.
[PS: Some will chorus "then help her do her work you smuck!" To which I reply "Ah, but I'm the one building the house." You see, when you really adopt the idea of do-it-yerself you bite off this enormous load of work that nobody even thinks about any more.]
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
This is what we would call either a "major exception" or one hell of a deception.
FLDS polygamy is "iron-fist male" rule, by every honest account that's come out of it. Even the idea of a woman in such a society becoming a paralegal is ridiculous.
Of course, I can 100% believe the brainwashed women "brought in" the 4th - because in the FLDS, it's that fourth wife gets the family into heaven. Only men with 4 or more wives get into heaven, and wives can only get in if their husband brings them along. I can also certainly believe the husband wasn't so keen on bringing in a widow - after all, if he'd waited a couple more years, he'd probably have been assigned a nice cute 14-year-old by the "church elders."
This should be rated "+1 Insightful" rather than funny. Simple fact is, the statement is likely true. Most polygamous houses have the concept of a head wife, to whom the other wives must address first. The head wife deals with everything from wifely discord, rearing the children, and even sleeping arrangements. Very likely the amount of nagging a husband hears and must deal with goes down when one has a traditional, polygamous household.
Keep in mind, polygamy has actually proved to be very beneficial to all involved. It's only been in more recent times, specifically in the West, that it has been frowned on. Even worse, in more recent times, specifically in the West, paedophiles have used this get at young women and girls, leaving masses of young women and girls without a means to support themselves or their truck loads of kids. The recent events in Texas highlight this.
Long story short, when men use it to further the goals of their house rather than paedophile urges, polygamy can actually be beneficial for all involved.
Remember, you're going to have four women who are all menstruating at the same time - I think that would have some negative effect ;-)
McClintock effect
The McClintock effect, also known as menstrual synchrony or the dormitory effect, is a theory that proposes that the menstrual cycles of women who live together (such as in prisons, convents, bordellos, or dormitories) tend to become synchronized over time.
It is thought to be analogous to the Whitten effect, which is the synchronization of the estrous cycle and has been noted in small animals such as mice and guinea pigs. In contrast to the Whitten effect, which is driven by male pheromones, the McClintock effect is postulated to have only female pheromonal involvement.
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
Perhaps it's only been in more recent times that large percentages of the men haven't had lengthy stints in the military that may have left the ratio of men and women at home lopsided, leading to current societies (most especially Western) being less willing to tolerate polygamy. It's been my understanding that the average number of wives even in polygamist societies has been declining, though this may also have something to do with an increased cost of living.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
is any analysis of whether the more long-lived men in a polygamous society are those with multiple wives, or those with no wives.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"men do stupid things" in your context they seem stupid in their context with the exception of suicide bomber its rational behavior. Killing yourself makes no sense but if the competition for females is great then as a male you have to be a great competitor even if the situation is dangerous, or carries other negative consequences. He may not get another opportunity. Now in our relatively equal parts male female society the competition is not as great. So the rational action is to wait for another opportunity if competing for the girl is dangerous or otherwise not your best interest.
I don't think other then the suicide bombers these people are being stupid just desperate.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Ordinarily, sure...I can't TELL you how many such dust-ups I've heard from in-laws. Comedians have taken themselves through entire careers based on it.
But one thing that's overlooked is the religious angle.
Sure, they're following a modified version of the Bible [assuming Mormons], promoted by a fellow claiming to have recieved the Writ of Abraham in Egypt that merely turned out to be a scroll having to do with whoever was buried in a tomb, but some of the faith abides:
- Don't murder anyone. Don't even think about it.
- Don't avenge yourself or others: God does it better, and offers a chance to show them the light
- Pay your own debts.
- Always tell the truth
- You'll be judged by your sins [which are the cause of misery]
Concepts like these go on and on- if you learn to adapt the mindset, the stress it relieves is incredible. Christians (and here, I mean _observant_ Christians, not just people who show up at mass twice a year, embody such philosophy. It's not really a stretch to realize, when you're not trying to get even with the neighbor who just got a bigger TV, you're going to be happier, knowing you only need be here for the one lifetime and move on.
Christians of this type _should_ be welcomed all around the world; the whole, 'be truthful with friends AND enemies' and 'have compassion for strangers' ideas should make them a breath of fresh air, but they're despised. We represent the truth they can't bring themselves to see or disprove, and that makes them nervous.
For example, not one cuss word appears in any of my texts; not one place do I pull a 'your momma!' and yet because people can't bear to think my viewpoint is right, I'm modded down to 'Karma: Bad'.
It all comes down to this: there IS a singular reality. Investigate the truth, and you'll likely follow the cause. Even scientific proof exists. But instead of investigating the proof, techno-philes prefer to whistle past the graveyard and believe Darwin, who's been disproved as much as Freud.
Why? I'm not sure. It doesn't stop them from investigating homosexuality, nor gambling, nor non-marital sex. You either will see, or you can't be made to see.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
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.
Aren't ALL children raised this way? I mean - I haven't seen many books called "Johnny goes to Dahlmer's for dinner."
The fact is that many - if not most parents try to put off exposure to violence, sexualization, and dirty language as long as possible. With the sludge-pool of modern communication (internet, TV, radio, press) and the spineless education system we have built - I have a great admiration for those who choose homeschooling.
I worry about homeschoolers that never introduce these things to their kids, though. It's one thing to decide when and where to expose them to the world - it's an entirely different (and wrong) approach to hide them from the world. At some point they need to be able to deal with these issues - they're part of human nature and have been for millennia.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Another possible confounding factor: Polygamy is often associated with religions (Mormon offshoots, Islam, ...) whose practitioners also have less exposure to a number of biochemical health risks due to religious prohibitions or discouragements: Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, other psychotropic drugs, pork-borne diseases, ...
Other aspects of their cultural or religious practices (such as their legal system, requirements to self-suppor and, support the family rather than depending on government charity, individually defend self, home, family, and/or society against human predators, etc.) may also reduce risk - from criminal activity, lack or mistiming of acquisition of important resources, etc.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Agree.
Rape has been shown to be a viable evolutionary strategy in other primates - after all the only chance a beta male gets to mate is to kill the alpha male or to sneak behind his back and I guess in that situation it's secondary if the female agrees or not. It is thought that women's "hidden estrus" evolved as a defense against rape.
So, bottom line, if you have many desperate males around in a society it will have consequences. Everybody knows they do stupid things when they're full of testosterone.
OTOH, I can believe the article's premise. How many men slow down significantly and get slow, fat and sick after the kids are through the worst? How many die soon after retirement? Having to support women and kids keeps you healthy and on your toes; that's a given from an evolutionary standpoint.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
[Co-wife] is a terrible word-my pen almost halts in writing it-woman's mortal enemy...How many hearts has it broken, how many minds has it confused and homes destroyed, how much evil brought and innocents sacrificed...a terrible word laden with savagery and selfishness...Bear in mind that as you amuse yourself with your new bride you cause another's despair to flow in tears...
Malak Hifni Nassef, as quoted in A Very Short Introduction to Islam, in the chapter on women, pp96.
This is by way of agreement, I thought it was one of the most harrowing descriptions of polygamy I've read, though I haven't read many.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
I suspect not much, and the reason why is the key bit in the article, which is "controlling for socioeconomic factors..." The problem here is that, in the modern world, there just aren't any polygamous societies that are wealthy, liberal democracies. I'm not being judgmental about it - that's just the way it is. So the "controlling" part is likely to be pretty extreme.
Are we looking at the tiny percentage in polygamous societies that do have a Western-style living standard? Because it's all those other (poorer) single men who are probably going to be killing each other off, not the rich few at the top. So no big surprise there.
Or are we looking at the society as a whole, but extrapolating life expectancy at living standard X out to what it "would be" under living standard Y? I would be extremely dubious of any such extrapolation.
Finally, just because polygamy "contributes" to violence - and I think it does - it certainly isn't the only thing that contributes. There are most likely factors that contribute significantly more. My claim is not really all that strong - I'm mostly just answering the fellow who asserted that polygamy is "beneficial for all those involved". I'm pretty convinced that it isn't.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
Of course, I can 100% believe the brainwashed women "brought in" the 4th - because in the FLDS, it's that fourth wife gets the family into heaven. Only men with 4 or more wives get into heaven, and wives can only get in if their husband brings them along.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but...
What stuck the show in my mind was that the 3 wives were the ones who actually brought in the fourth. The husband wasn't actually keen on the idea at first.
...it almost sounds as if he didn't want to go to heaven?
IMHO everyone seems to have missed the most glaring flaw in the study. 140 countries that 'practice polygamy'? Really? I strongly doubt that there are 140 countries where the number of polygamists is statistically significant and is large enough to cause a measurable effect on a property of the average male. And only 49 'mostly monogamous' countries? Rubbish.
The problem seems to be the 'monogamy scale' mentioned in the article. Perhaps they considered every country where polygamy in some form is legal as ones that 'practice polygamy'. For example in India, polygamy is legal (only) for Muslims, but there are so few Muslims that practice it that it cannot possibly have any effect on the average male. So this correlation observed among countries that 'practice polygamy' (which in reality just have a tiny causally insignificant number of polygamists) is probably just noise.
In societies where women are not even meant to be seen let alone heard can clearly live a far more relaxed live with more women waiteing on the men.
But in the western world woman presume the dominant role within the house (most men beg their wives to let them buy that new PC, TV, etc..) more than one woman would mean more than one dominant control freak in the house.
Polygamy in the west is a terrible idea. I have no frigging idea how to keep up with all the demands of one woman (my wife who's reading this now agrees that I'm clueless and she feels it's for my own good) having a second woman demanding I do this, that, or the other thing would kill me in a year or two.
P.S. - My wife wishes that I relay that men are good for three things. Opening jars, killing bugs and changing tires. She says, the other things she can buy in a store with or without batteries.
This seems extremely flawed. If you are comparing longevity among those who already reached 60, the first question I would ask is what are the numbers for everyone? I am betting they are reversed when you include all those who didn't make it to 60.
First many of these countries identified are probably harsher environments, then you create additional pressures by having polygamy, which means much higher mate competition pressures. If one guy has 4 wives, 3 guys get no wives.
So you have a survival of the fittest regime, that is likely killing off a lot of the weaker samples early. Then you compare the 60+ year old survivors to average 60 year olds in non polygamous societies (likely the west) where most of those weaker individuals make it to 60.
Can we have a: "Well Duh!"
Someone got paid for this?