I lived with 4 people to a house as roommates in college and we drove each other nuts.
TFA links to another article, "Love unlimited: The polyamorists" where two, or more, men and women live in the same house. I don't want to ruin it but I thought it was interesting.
Finally, I've gotten caught in a triangle of two guys and 1 girl and I tell you it was awful. I'd need a serious mind scrubbing to be dandy with it. I was jealous as hell and hated the other guy and knew he hated me equally as well.
That, jealousy, is why it's not for everyone but I prefer polygamy/polyamory. I've got a couple of dozen websites bookmarked, I got my first one more than 10 years ago. Actually almost all are several years old at least.
Maybe my friends are the only ones in America doing it for what I would consider to be the right reasons.
I too have thought I'd rather teach my children when, if, I have them at home. What some parents are able to do is have their children in school only a couple of hours a day then they spend the rest studying at home. By doing this the children are able to get some social interaction with other kids their age.
There's at least one more. To be fair, polyandry is rather rare, though it does have its practical appeal (e.g., Paint Your Wagon!).
I loved that movie. I thought Clint Eastwood was real funny, then again the whole movie was. As for polyandry, though they are at least partly polygamous it seems the Zoe, Marrying, tribe in Amazonian Brazil is very much polyandrous.
in a polygamous society there are much, much fewer women to go around
In a polygamous society, because women would be able to have more than one husband, there would be plenty of women to go around. It is in a polygynist society, like the FDLS practices, where there are not enough women to go around.
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
What you describe above is not polygamy. Under polygamy those 4 women could have 4 husbands each. It's only under polygyny that one man can have 4 wives but those wives can only have the one husband.
I seriously doubt these are people living polygamously, more likely they are living polygynyously. There's a quick way to tell, can a woman have more than one husband? If not then they aren't living polygamously.
In Islamic countries, polygamy is allowed but usually on several conditions and is highly regulated.
No, polygamy is not allowed in Islamic countries, polygyny is allowed there. A man, even if highly regulated, is allowed more than one wife but a woman is not allowed more than one husband.
I think that this study needs a lot more work. As others have observed, they're only sampling men who have already lived past 60, and of those who are polygamous
I think what's wrong with the study was that it looked at polygyny not polygamy.
because polygamy "contributes" to violence - and I think it does
How so? Maybe you, like most people, make the mistake of thinking polygyny is polygamy. However unlike polygyny, where a man has more than one wife, in polygamy both men and women can have more than one spouse.
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.
Polygyny may not be beneficial to all but polygamy certainly can be.
You're talking about polygyny, not polygamy, although that's a common mistake.
Thank you, thank you. Now I know I'm not the only person on/. that knows what polygamy is and that what most people call "polygamy" is really polygyny. I wonder what they would think of polyandry.
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.
If polygamy is wide spread enough every male could have a wife. What you are talking about, a man having more than one wife is polygyny not polygamy.
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.
The problem you are describing in caused not by polygamy but by polygyny. Polygamy would actually help here. Please notice the differences in definition, in polygyny a man can have more than one wive whereas in polygamy a man and a woman can have more than one spouse. And to make it more confusing, in polyandry a woman has more than one husband.
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.
the statement is likely true. Most polygamous houses have the concept of a head wife, to whom the other wives must address first.
The simple fact is is a polygamous household can have more than one husband. Those households where the man has more than one wife but each wife only has one husband is a polygynyist household not a polygamous household.
The recent events in Texas highlight this.
Despite what the mass media says that Mormon sect practices polygyny not polygamy.
In some african cultures land is inherited matrilineally but the husband is responsible for working it.
Matriarchy is also found in American Indian tribes. For instance what clan a Cherokee mother is is the clan of her children. Iroquois Indians and other tribes of the Northeast US and eastern Canada are the same. Actually when Europeans came to America they were shocked by the matriarch and matrilineal systems.
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.
Sorry but that's not polygamy, what that is is polygyny. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. When a man has more than one wife that's polygyny. And when a woman has more than one spouse that's polyandry.
I was concerned TFA would make the same mistake but it doesn't go that far, unlike the mass media coverage of that Mormon sect. And it links to another "New Scientist" article "Love unlimited: The polyamorists" where both men and women have more than one partner.
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.
Why not take them with you? Or find one that does like fishing? Because you couldn't escape?
Ah yes, that's why small farmers can't compete. It doesn't have anything to do with economies of scale, no sir.
If economies of scale was all that mattered then large scale farms wouldn't need subsidies.
If they a get employment with a private company good for them. And with government out of medical and health care more jobs with private insurers will be created.
Again, the only way we'd end up with "more jobs" is if the system became less efficient as a result.
So what if private insurers didn't employ as many people as government run insurance, private is as you say more efficient. Employing more people to run insurance is just make work work, and taxpayers will have to pay those salaries. People complain about the expense of health care, employing less people, in insurance, reduces the cost. If you want to make more work then employ more medical people not more insurance people.
it's odd that you're championing a move toward inefficiency.
What's odd is that you first intimated private insurance would be more efficient, the only way we'd end up with "more jobs" is if the system became less efficient as a result, now you're saying the opposite. And no I don't champion inefficiency, I champion competition. and competition increases efficiency.
People already can do that. You know why they don't? Because HSAs are pointless unless you're either (1) healthy enough that you won't get sick before the account is full, or (2) wealthy enough that it doesn't matter.
But do they know that? I didn't find out until earlier this year when someone else posted about health saving accounts. I bet I can go out on the street and ask others if they know about them and many won't. But you are right in one thing, according to the Government Acconting Office, GAO, the average income of those who had HSAs in 2005 was $139,000 whereas the average for those without one was $57,000. But in the same report though it said lower income people are more wiling to gamble with their health. And as far as I'm concerned, you gamble you pay. You don't gamble then try to get out of it when you lose.
See, "bankrupt" means there's no money left to pay their obligations, but that's not going to happen any time soon
First, bankrupt means more than just not having enough money. It also means a person who is completely lacking in a particular desirable quality or attribute moral bankrupt[cy] or DISAPPROVING lacking in a particular quality, Onelook has more. Second I consider it morally bankrupt, see the first two definitions above, for anyone to be forced to work to pay for anyone they did not bring into the world themself, ie you are responsible to take care of all of the children you bring into the world but you have no responsibility to take care of anyone else.
As I don't want to keep going over this with you I'll just say one more thing then I'll end my part. You trust government more than business and I distrust business less than I do government. Government has caused more problems than any business, it has killed more people than any of them as well. And many of the problems business has made government allowed to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I lived with 4 people to a house as roommates in college and we drove each other nuts.
TFA links to another article, "Love unlimited: The polyamorists" where two, or more, men and women live in the same house. I don't want to ruin it but I thought it was interesting.
Finally, I've gotten caught in a triangle of two guys and 1 girl and I tell you it was awful. I'd need a serious mind scrubbing to be dandy with it. I was jealous as hell and hated the other guy and knew he hated me equally as well.
That, jealousy, is why it's not for everyone but I prefer polygamy/polyamory. I've got a couple of dozen websites bookmarked, I got my first one more than 10 years ago. Actually almost all are several years old at least.
Falcon
Maybe my friends are the only ones in America doing it for what I would consider to be the right reasons.
I too have thought I'd rather teach my children when, if, I have them at home. What some parents are able to do is have their children in school only a couple of hours a day then they spend the rest studying at home. By doing this the children are able to get some social interaction with other kids their age.
Falcon
There's at least one more. To be fair, polyandry is rather rare, though it does have its practical appeal (e.g., Paint Your Wagon!).
I loved that movie. I thought Clint Eastwood was real funny, then again the whole movie was. As for polyandry, though they are at least partly polygamous it seems the Zoe, Marrying, tribe in Amazonian Brazil is very much polyandrous.
Falcon
I think that's gay.
Yes, the mass media gets words wrong. And what would be gay is if they got words right.
Falcon
in a polygamous society there are much, much fewer women to go around
In a polygamous society, because women would be able to have more than one husband, there would be plenty of women to go around. It is in a polygynist society, like the FDLS practices, where there are not enough women to go around.
Falcon
Has there ever been a society in which both men and women would have multiple wives/husbands?
Yes, "polygamy had been practiced for much of history in many parts of the world". In Brazil there's the Zoe, or Marrying, tribe for instance. The Discovery Channel did a documentary on them back in 2001.
Falcon
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
What you describe above is not polygamy. Under polygamy those 4 women could have 4 husbands each. It's only under polygyny that one man can have 4 wives but those wives can only have the one husband.
Falcon
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.
I seriously doubt that that book describes polygamy. I bet what it describes is polygyny.
Falcon
There are people living polygamously
I seriously doubt these are people living polygamously, more likely they are living polygynyously. There's a quick way to tell, can a woman have more than one husband? If not then they aren't living polygamously.
Falcon
In Islamic countries, polygamy is allowed but usually on several conditions and is highly regulated.
No, polygamy is not allowed in Islamic countries, polygyny is allowed there. A man, even if highly regulated, is allowed more than one wife but a woman is not allowed more than one husband.
Falcon
Polygamy is often associated with religions
The problem is polygamy is confused with polygyny.
Falcon
Anyway you look at it, a society where men do not have access to women (or vice versa), for whatever reason, is fsked up. Polygamy is one reason.
You're wrong. Polygamy would allow every man to have a wife, under polygamy a woman would be able to have more than one husband.
But then consider other reasons like female infanticide in India and China and you have a serious problem going forward that is as bad as polygamy.
Infanticide in China and India is as bad as polygyny not polygamy.
Falcon
I think that this study needs a lot more work. As others have observed, they're only sampling men who have already lived past 60, and of those who are polygamous
I think what's wrong with the study was that it looked at polygyny not polygamy.
Falcon
I hope you're not equating polyamory with swinging.
Falcon
because polygamy "contributes" to violence - and I think it does
How so? Maybe you, like most people, make the mistake of thinking polygyny is polygamy. However unlike polygyny, where a man has more than one wife, in polygamy both men and women can have more than one spouse.
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.
Polygyny may not be beneficial to all but polygamy certainly can be.
Falcon
You're talking about polygyny, not polygamy, although that's a common mistake.
Thank you, thank you. Now I know I'm not the only person on /. that knows what polygamy is and that what most people call "polygamy" is really polygyny. I wonder what they would think of polyandry.
Falcon
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.
If polygamy is wide spread enough every male could have a wife. What you are talking about, a man having more than one wife is polygyny not polygamy.
Falcon
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.
The problem you are describing in caused not by polygamy but by polygyny. Polygamy would actually help here. Please notice the differences in definition, in polygyny a man can have more than one wive whereas in polygamy a man and a woman can have more than one spouse. And to make it more confusing, in polyandry a woman has more than one husband.
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.
Perhaps a look at Love unlimited: The polyamorists will disavow that.
Falcon
the statement is likely true. Most polygamous houses have the concept of a head wife, to whom the other wives must address first.
The simple fact is is a polygamous household can have more than one husband. Those households where the man has more than one wife but each wife only has one husband is a polygynyist household not a polygamous household.
The recent events in Texas highlight this.
Despite what the mass media says that Mormon sect practices polygyny not polygamy.
Falcon
In some african cultures land is inherited matrilineally but the husband is responsible for working it.
Matriarchy is also found in American Indian tribes. For instance what clan a Cherokee mother is is the clan of her children. Iroquois Indians and other tribes of the Northeast US and eastern Canada are the same. Actually when Europeans came to America they were shocked by the matriarch and matrilineal systems.
Falcon
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.
Sorry but that's not polygamy, what that is is polygyny. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. When a man has more than one wife that's polygyny. And when a woman has more than one spouse that's polyandry.
I was concerned TFA would make the same mistake but it doesn't go that far, unlike the mass media coverage of that Mormon sect. And it links to another "New Scientist" article "Love unlimited: The polyamorists" where both men and women have more than one partner.
Falcon
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.
Why not take them with you? Or find one that does like fishing? Because you couldn't escape?
Falcon
Ah yes, that's why small farmers can't compete. It doesn't have anything to do with economies of scale, no sir.
If economies of scale was all that mattered then large scale farms wouldn't need subsidies.
If they a get employment with a private company good for them. And with government out of medical and health care more jobs with private insurers will be created.
Again, the only way we'd end up with "more jobs" is if the system became less efficient as a result.
So what if private insurers didn't employ as many people as government run insurance, private is as you say more efficient. Employing more people to run insurance is just make work work, and taxpayers will have to pay those salaries. People complain about the expense of health care, employing less people, in insurance, reduces the cost. If you want to make more work then employ more medical people not more insurance people.
it's odd that you're championing a move toward inefficiency.
What's odd is that you first intimated private insurance would be more efficient, the only way we'd end up with "more jobs" is if the system became less efficient as a result, now you're saying the opposite. And no I don't champion inefficiency, I champion competition. and competition increases efficiency.
People already can do that. You know why they don't? Because HSAs are pointless unless you're either (1) healthy enough that you won't get sick before the account is full, or (2) wealthy enough that it doesn't matter.
But do they know that? I didn't find out until earlier this year when someone else posted about health saving accounts. I bet I can go out on the street and ask others if they know about them and many won't. But you are right in one thing, according to the Government Acconting Office, GAO, the average income of those who had HSAs in 2005 was $139,000 whereas the average for those without one was $57,000. But in the same report though it said lower income people are more wiling to gamble with their health. And as far as I'm concerned, you gamble you pay. You don't gamble then try to get out of it when you lose.
See, "bankrupt" means there's no money left to pay their obligations, but that's not going to happen any time soon
First, bankrupt means more than just not having enough money. It also means a person who is completely lacking in a particular desirable quality or attribute moral bankrupt[cy] or DISAPPROVING lacking in a particular quality, Onelook has more. Second I consider it morally bankrupt, see the first two definitions above, for anyone to be forced to work to pay for anyone they did not bring into the world themself, ie you are responsible to take care of all of the children you bring into the world but you have no responsibility to take care of anyone else.
As I don't want to keep going over this with you I'll just say one more thing then I'll end my part. You trust government more than business and I distrust business less than I do government. Government has caused more problems than any business, it has killed more people than any of them as well. And many of the problems business has made government allowed to happen.
Falcon
No, I didn't.
Falcon
Yes flash block do have a list of allowed site, and it alone can stop the attack.
Okay, guess I'll check it out.
Falcon