Against polygamy
 

Nothing serious, just some stuff I thought of a while back. Tongue firmly in cheek, okay?

This is an argument against Mormon-style harem polygamy. I think I must have seen an ad for Big Love or something.

Consider the following stipulations:

Each male can take as many wives as he chooses. Women marry one man at most.

Each wife gives a possibility of nookie.

Nookie only takes place between man and wife (because anything else is an abomination, remember?)

There is risk of strife, but only between wives (because if a woman disagrees with the man, she is automatically wrong and will shut her cakehole.) This could irritate the man.

Simple mathematics shows that adding wives beyond one worsens the situation.

Consider:

Adding wives increases the chance of nookie in a linear manner:

Number of wives : ........... 0....1....2....3....4....5....6
Opportunities for nookie :.. 0....1....2....3....4....5....6


But adding wives increases the chance of strife at an increasing rate.

Number of wives : ........... 0....1....2....3....4.....5....6
Chance of strife :............. 0....0....1....3....6....10...15

This is because each additional wife can engage in strife with any one of the existing wives, but can only engage in nookie with the man.

Clearly, no sensible man would add wives beyond one, or maybe two (you know ... one for use, one for pleasure...).

Maths. Proving Mormons wrong yet again. :D

I'm thinking about sending this to the Journal of Chauvinist Pig Studies, so I'd appreciate your feedback.

IIRC Wang Lung noted this when he brought Lotus into his marriage with O-lan.

Classic rookie mistake.

If I disagree, I am automatically wrong.
Therefore I will shut my cakehole.

Is there nothing you can't mathematize?!!! (well played)

I disagree. One wife knows she has no competition, and thus will only want nookie on her schedule. But if she is aware of wife #2's nookie offerings, she is more likely to increase her own offerings to compete (for approval, for more babies, etc.) Thus the opportunities for nookie are a gestalt proposition: two wives together will likely provide a greater chance of nookie than the sum of each individual wife alone.

It is important to note, however, the law of diminishing returns. The function wives(nookie) is likely a logarithmic scale approaching a limit of around one nookie per day. No point in adding wives beyond that ideal maximum.

Hence the fantasy of most men: a threesome with 2 girls.

Isn't that ironic? All most women are fantasizing about is ONE good (in every sense) man. You say men are content with a hundred crappy women?

But Polygamous Nookie is provided on a serial, not parallel basis. There are no two-for-one specials.

I know this because I do watch Big Love, Sister Wives, and saw several documentaries on Mormon Cults on National Geographic channel yesterday.

From what I know/heard, the founder of the Mormon church was caught committing adultery on his wife, and then told her God came to him as an angel and told him it was legitimate to take multiple wives.

Because in a biological sense, marriage for homo sapiens is and always will be universal. Throughout the globe it has been one husband one wife. This solves the postpartum feeding problem, as the mother stays at home and has the father bound to her through marriage so he can go gather food for his offspring.

No knocking on the religion, but polygamy goes against human evolution/instinct.

It's true. Men never cheat on their wives because that would be unnatural...

:lol:

And all us chicks want to do is breed and feed and hope hubby doesn't run across a sheep or something so he'll come home and bring us food. ;)

I didn't mean cheat, but the union of marriage universally has always been 1:1 and evolved that way for humans because of the postpartum feeding problem.

The what?

Fresh are you discounting Japan and most of the Middle East in your calculations? Traditionally in Africa, men would have as many women as they could afford.
And even Europeans Kings routinely had known mistresses. Madame de Pompadour, Nell Gwynn.

Men throughout the ages have done whatever and whomever they have been able to get away with. And the more power you had the more you wanted to ensure the succession of your DNA. Houses and Kingdoms have fallen because Kings have been unable to produce offspring.

Um. No. Your model is far too simplistic. It may be the "norm" currently but that's in large part a consequence of path dependence and not anything hard-wired.

It's a really complicated issue and I'm not qualified to really tear up your view. For that we would need an anthropologist.

But here is my only-mildly informed, quickly written view.

Polygamy (or monogamy or polyandry) is societal and not against anything inherent to humanness. It is an attempt at establishing paternity, just like monogamy.

Paternity became important when human societies shifted to be primarily agrarian. Wealth could be kept within the family at that point.

To this day there are tribal peoples where mating pairs are informal and children are community assets (i.e., every male has a vested interested in caring for all of them like they were their own). Desirable males will have many mates. They don't even have the concepts of polygamy and monogamy, and are just fine without it.

That said, polygamy can cause societal problems. I read a research summary claiming that some amount of terrorism from Middle Eastern countries is linked to polygamy. It creates an excess of young men without prospect of marriage.