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."

Comments

I would have thought the opposite

[loftwyr]

I would have thought having multiple sets of in-laws would shorten your life expectancy through frustration alone...

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[jgarra23]

Not only that, how does going from ONE nagging wife to TWO nagging wives make for longevity??

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[snoyberg]

They nag each other instead of nagging you?

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[Rival]

Not only that, how does going from ONE nagging wife to TWO nagging wives make for longevity??

Maybe it just *seems* like his life is longer?

"Sit on a hot stove for a minute and it feels like an hour; sit with a pretty girl for an hour and it feels like a minute. Live with two wives and it makes sitting on a hot stove look pretty good." (with apologies to Albert Einstein)

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[jriding]

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.

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[midnitewolf]

Chop, Chop, Dig, Dig, Chop, Chop, Dig, Dig...

I hear digging, but I don't hear chopping!

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[Martin Blank]

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.

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[jedidiah]

No. The only thing that recent events in Texas highlight is the
fact that goverment beaurocrats will gladly ignore their own rules
and so so without any consideration of the consequences...

"Pedophilia" is just a sort of "think of the children" sort of
rallying cry to try and silence everyone concerned about due
process or the massive logistics involved.

Someone wanted to "harass the freaks" and that was just their excuse.

Fundie Mormons should at least get the level of consideration that
the mob gets from the FBI.

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[Gospodin]

Actually, it's not beneficial for large numbers of single men, who necessarily have no wife at all (for each man with two wives, there is one with none, since the sex ratio in humans is very close to 1:1). There is also some evidence that having large numbers of single men contributes to violence (this should come as no surprise). Hence, polygamy probably contributes to violence.

Furthermore, while from a strictly materialistic point of view, polygamy is beneficial to women (since richer men tend to have more wives and can support them better on average), I don't think there's a lot of evidence that these women are "better off" from a liberal Western point of view. They are probably not going to be well educated or in the work force, for example.

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[Gospodin]

You want a source on the fact that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women? Where are you from, Alpha Centauri? (BTW, at birth, worldwide, the human sex ratio is about 105 boys to 100 girls. It's slightly lower, about 101:100, during the sexually active years. All this does is increase the number of single men, making polygamy even less attractive.)

Your point about sexual orientation is immaterial. If polygamy is widespread enough to leave large numbers of men single, the fact that some small percentage of them will be gay is not going to change this fact.

Your point about no interest in marriage is irrelevant. What matters is whether men can find a mate, not whether they can actually marry. Even without marriage, if 25% of the men have no available mate, they have no choice in the matter.

Interesting blog article about this issue.

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[Gospodin]

What the hell does that say for monogamous society?

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.

Re:I would have thought the opposite

[NotBornYesterday]

It is well known that women tend to outlive men.

Why do women live longer than men?
They refuse to die until they have the last word.

Why do men die sooner than women?
For the peace and quiet.

(ducks for cover ... )

Related to an old joke

[base3]

Q. "Why do married men die before their wives?" A. "Because they want to"

Re:Related to an old joke

[Mr2cents]

(except Hans Reiser)

Serial vs. Simultaneous

[bob_herrick]

I wonder if serial polyagmy has any of the same benefits? I am sure I would not have lived this long if still with the ex.

Forwarding this to my wife...

[Enderandrew]

...and I'll even share! I'm all for watching girl-on-girl action!

That being said, as much as my wife and I both love naked chicks, I can't imagine being married to more than one woman, let alone surviving longer from it. One woman is enough to kill me.

Nah

[XanC]

Men who are comfortable having multiple wives have no problems telling the in-laws to stuff it.

Re:Nah

[A nonymous Coward]

Who says you have to have multiple sets of in-laws? Just marry sisters and/or brothers, or heck, marry the in-laws too!

Re:Nah

[budgenator]

I met a gentleman who claimed to have 13 wife back home in Africa, in his version of polygamy, Number One Wife basically ruled the family with an iron fist. She decided which wife did which tasks and who got to visit the husbands quarters and when. Any wife that offended Number One was in for a world of misery. Overall Polygamy didn't sound like fun for anyone except Number One Wife; like in many cultures, what is displayed in public is different from what happens behind closed doors.

Re:Nah

[Iron Condor]

Nah. With two wives I can tell #1 that I'll be spending the weekend with #2; I can tell #2 that I'll be spending the weekend with #1; and on the weekend I can go fishing.

There's a LOT to control for

[jfengel]

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.

Re:There's a LOT to control for

[perlchild]

I realize polyandry is much rarer, but did they try to contrast this with it? I suspect the cultural expecations that make polygamy possible make the stress-free living that really generates the longevity possible. Up to the point where the opposite would be true for polyandry.

Hugh Hefner

[hansamurai]

A quick check shows Hugh Hefner at 82, that's proof enough for me.

Now if I could just convince my wife...

Re:I will live forever!

[TheRealMindChild]

I was talking to some friends about this recently... there is an expectation (at least in the USoA culture) that when you love someone, you marry them and you stay married and live happily ever after. The problem is, most people don't actually want that. They think they do because they have been told that is how it is. Everyone wants the happily ever after, but when it comes to marriage/monogamy, it isn't everyones way to get there.

Polygamous cultures

[hey!]

often practice warfare to an unusual degree. High numbers of young male deaths leads to a surplus of marriageable women -- including widows. Polygamy allows the fertility rate to compensate, among other things.

It follows that while the cost of war is borne most by the dead, any potential benefits must be shared disproportionately more by the survivors.

By a similar logic, I'd bet that the countries in question have a much higher mortality rate for young men from all causes, and that survivors into old age posses, disproportionately, social fitness. In other words the poor die young and the rich live longer. This may also be exacerbated when you look at certain small and exceptional countries, such as Brunei.

In any case, there is only so far clever juxtaposition of gross numbers can get you. To really understand data, you have to disaggregate it, which is probably not possible in the datasets they have. Overall male life expectancy is a better measure of male health, not the survival rates of those who have already reached advanced age. That's practically asking to have your data confounded.

Wrong forum

[Joe Snipe]

Since no one here has a even a girlfriend, I would say this is neither news for nerds or stuff that matters. :(

Question

[Mr2cents]

I have only one question: what is the list of polygamous nations?

Re:Question

[hypergreatthing]

I have only one question: what is the list of polygamous nations?

And the follow up, are they looking for more engineers?

IT IS the opposite

[pejyel]

On a short-term basis, it might be true, but on the evolutionary scale, polygamy seems to have the opposite effect. at least this article suggests so: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/17/scisex117.xml

Confucius say

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Confucius say "Man who hosts two women under one roof sleep in doghouse."

correlation is not causation.

[gandhi_2]

I live in Southern Utah. I see polyg's ("puh-lig") every week at Walmart.

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.

Attempts to convince your wife...

[Junta]

May shorten your life expectancy.

I just asked my wife about this

[jandrese]

She guaranteed me that sleeping with other women would have the opposite effect on my longevity.

I think you ust hit the mail on the head

[bihoy]

I suspect that people who are happy with their lives in general will live longer.

There are studies that show that married people live longer than those who are not.

There are studies that claim that happily married people live longer than those who are not happy in their marriage.

What makes men happy?

Being a guy I know I am happier when I get more opportunity for some "good" lovin' from my woman.

Do you see where I'm going with this? It's all about what makes you happy (imho).

Now then, the next question is: What makes women happy?

Figure that out and your onto something.

Re:I think you ust hit the mail on the head

[hairyfeet]

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

Re:I think you ust hit the mail on the head

[Moryath]

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."

Re:I think you ust hit the mail on the head

[MozeeToby]

The problem with polygomy isn't really a problem with women. If you are raised in that society there is nothing about a polygomous relationship that is inherently negative or abusive. The real problem is the men.

Imagine if every family held to about the same ratio of 1 husband to 4 wives. You now have 3 men who will never be able to find a wife, never be able to start a family. Beleive it or not, evolution had kind of made men extremely averse to this situation. Men get desperate, they do stupid things, and not just hooking up with ugly women. They take inordinate risks to gain prestige, they debase themselve to gain acceptence of people higher on the social ladder, they gamble their life and their money in the hopes of 'earning' a wife.

There's even been talk of this being the cause of many suicide bombings. People to low in the heirarchy know they will never have children and life looses some of it's meaning; to the point where the promise of wives in the afterlife is strong enough that it drives you to kill yourself.

Re:I think you ust hit the mail on the head

[smellsofbikes]

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.

Re:I think you ust hit the mail on the head

[Panaflex]

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.

Re:I think you ust hit the mail on the head

[Angus McNitt]

FLDS != All Mormom Sects

Their are many different Mormon sects that all practice their own brand of Mormon-ism. FLDS is just the one currently in the news. Using one particular group as a stereotype for anything is just wrong.

Sorry, just tired of hearing people using FLDS and LDS interchangeably.

i'm outraged!

[Lord Ender]

Why was I not invited to participate in this study? No matter which test group you are assigned to, you end up getting tail. I happen to be a strong proponent of getting tail.

All I can say is...

[Mistshadow2k4]

....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?

And what about the women?

[VoidCrow]

Getting a decent shag out of a man is hard enough without having to share him with other women.

You've completely missed it

[blueZ3]

Now then, the next question is: What makes women happy?

Figure that out and your onto something.

More like "figure that out, and she'll change her mind"

Just kidding, honey! Honest.

Re:You've completely missed it

[Archangel Michael]

Women aren't happy unless they are miserable.

More likely, it's sampling bias.

[Moryath]

Consider the following: every culture that practices polygamy (actually polygyny, multiple wives, as opposed to polyandry, which would be multiple husbands) has to do something about the extra males. Each and every society like this, without exception, has been AMAZINGLY misogynistic - and that's continued today in the modern Muslim and Fundamentalist LDS "polygamist" cultures.

When you have a surplus of males, your option is pretty much either (a) kick them out into the world (what the FLDS do) or (b) get them killed off in warring, tribal or otherwise (which is what much of Africa and Middle Eastern muslim societies do).

If you get to be old in such cultures, you're wealthy. In fact, wealth is more an indicator of your life expectancy, in any culture.

However, now compare those cultures across the board. If you're in Europe or in America/Canada or another westernized nation, it's relatively easy to get past 60 - after all, you have the free health care systems and welfare setups to rely on.

On the flipside, look at the polygamist societies - in Middle Eastern/African muslim societies, those who aren't going to reach 60 (read: the poor) usually kill themselves off FAR faster in various tribal conflicts and wars. In the FLDS, tracking down their "lost boys" usually winds up giving you an example of kids who have the world yanked from under them and wind up becoming drug addicts and worse because they've been taught from day one that the "outside world" was out to kill them anyways for being FLDS.

What you have there isn't a real phenomenon. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a classic mistake that is made by this fatally flawed "study."

Re:More likely, it's sampling bias.

[Moryath]

Are you trying to imply that the polygamy is causing misogynistic tendencies? Because I think it's the other way around.

No, it's the other way around like you say - only a society which sees women as mere property could evolve to have polygyny without equal rights to polyandry, and NO society has ever evolved both. Every "polygamist" society has treated women as mere property.

Wives need wives

[theCat]

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.]

Re:Wives need wives

[Bretski]

I really believe this type of arrangement will become more common in the future. I've probabaly missed the boat, as I'm already in my mid 30s. But I'll bet by the time my kids (now 2) and their friends are of dating age, polyamorous relationships of varying degrees will be quite common.

Every generation has found new ways to push the limits of sex and relationships - the 60/70s had "free love", swinger parties etc. The 80/90s were somewhat of a slow period (maybe AIDS had something to do with it). And now it seems experimenting with homosexuality, at least for girls, is very mainstream and acceptible. Porn and strip clubs is mainstream now, at least in the part of the US in which I live.

Polyamory exists now as a secretive, underground lifestyle choice, just like homosexuality and pornography did in the past. I predict big things for polyamory in the near future.

My wife and I have also considered becoming involved with another girl in some fashion, but at this time the barriers seem too great - cultural norms, legality, etc.

You have a big problem here.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Read the summary of the study's conclusion again. What the study claims to demonstrate isn't that polygamists live longer than other men in their own society; what it demonstrates is that in societies where a minority of the men have multiple wives, the mean longevity of all men is longer.

Note the following two things that follow from this:

1. It hasn't been demonstrated that the extra mean longevity in the population as a whole is due to the extra longevity of the polygamists. Nobody's gonna be surprised if more research shows that is the case, but let's not get ahead of ourselves
2. Far more importantly, if it is indeed the case that the small number of polygamists truly does push up the average life expectancy of the whole community, this means that the men who don't have multiple wives aren't pulling it down.

The second point I just made is at odds with what you're telling us here:

On the flipside, look at the polygamist societies - in Middle Eastern/African muslim societies, those who aren't going to reach 60 (read: the poor) usually kill themselves off FAR faster in various tribal conflicts and wars.

For this to be consistent with the results of the study, the negative effect of such early deaths on average longevity must be smaller than the positive effect that the polygamists have on the same statistic. Which suggests you're totally overblowing this by reasoning on the basis of stereotypes.

Re:You have a big problem here.

[Moryath]

For this to be consistent with the results of the study, the negative effect of such early deaths on average longevity must be smaller than the positive effect that the polygamists have on the same statistic.

Quite the reverse: they "controlled" the study by only studying men who had exceeded 60 years of age.

That biases your study sample. Kill the poor off young, and you won't see many poor men living only to 62-63 years.

What's missing from the study....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

is any analysis of whether the more long-lived men in a polygamous society are those with multiple wives, or those with no wives.

Excuse me, but your prejudice is showing

[Chicken_Kickers]

WTF dude? Your sweeping statements of Middle Eastern MOOSLIMS smacks of something Colbert would say. Really, do you think places that practice polygamy are Mad Maxesque Thunderdome x10 where all young Muslim males go in and only one comes out at 60? I never understood the "Western" world's view on polygamy. You're okay with teenagers sleeping around, you're okay with married people sleeping around (as glamorised by your insipid soap operas) but apparently not polygamy? In Islamic countries, polygamy is allowed but usually on several conditions and is highly regulated.

1. You must have enough money (courts usually demand proof). In some countries, applications can be denied because of lack of money.
2. You must be as fair as humanly possible to the wives, even so far as the amount of time spent with them (the wives can complain to the courts)
3. In some countries, you have to get the first wive's consent
4. Legally, all of the wives have equal rights to your money and assets. If you buy a car for one, you have to buy a car for all of them.
5. All of the children sired are the husband's responsibility. You are required by law to protect, feed, house, educate them until they are adults. There are no difference in status of children from different wives

It is for these reasons, especially for reason number 2, which 'fundementalist' Muslims believe is the quickest route to hell should you screw up that polygamy is actually not that widely practised in proportion to just having one spouse. Now, compare this to the de facto polygamy that is practised in the Western world and see who is mysogynistic.

Women and misery: a study in redundancy.

[TiggertheMad]

Women aren't happy unless you are miserable.

Oppsie, typo. Fixed it for you

Re:I will live forever!

[JPLemme]

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.

Duty Roster

[zazenation]

I can't resist the challenge of classifying the duties of 13 wives:

Wife#1 - Head Wife , as in lead wife, the matriarch of the harem. For head wife, see #7

Wife#2 - Sports equipment maintenance: cleans balls, buffs club heads, wipes shafts, etc. For similar duties see wife #7

Wife#3 - Food servicing: food prep for friends, beer fetcher, pizza gofer, etc.

Wife#3 - Personal comfort: Fanning, AC/heat control, recliner inclination monitor, foot massage, etc.

Wife#4 - Communications: answering phone with excuses as to why husband can't answer, getting the door, etc.

Wife#5 - Media control: Monitoring location of all TV and video remote controls, summarizing viewing habits of husband and printing list of shows for him, etc.

Wife#6 - Cleaning: Washing, ironing, vacuuming, etc.

Wife#7 - Head Wife - oh yeah!

Wife#s8,9,10 - Bedtime playmates, multiple partners to alleviate boredom.

Wife#11 - Backup wife for positions 1-10

Wife#12 - Secondary (redundant) backup wife.

Wife#13 - I have no idea why he would need a 13th wife! What a self-centered A-hole!

bad 'monogamy scale'

[disputationist]

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.

Re:More wives would be a curse in the west

[Sj0]

Dude, your wife sounds mean.