Debating Polygamy
February 26th, 2006 at 11:01 am by David FarrarA great debate on Marginal Revolution about the economic arguments for or against polygamy.
Alex Tabarrok states the economic argument is nthat polygny increases the demand for women – under polygny Bill Gates can have two wives which by demonstrated preferences makes at least the second wife better off – suggests, but does not prove, that polygny can favor women.
Related posts:
- Polygamy more justified than same sex marriage?
- Polygamy and same sex marriage
- Economists get geeky on wives and prostitution
- Another debating win
February 26th, 2006 at 11:26 am
But when the demand for women increases as all commodities cheaper alternatives may be available as evidenced here in the Sudan where this gentlemen married a goat.Is this to be the penultimate model of the Nanny state.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Woohoo, the lump of labour fallacy. Let’s force people to do something they don’t want to leave some for others! Stop eating bread so someone else can buy it, even if the bread seller is far worse off as a result.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Polygamy is very natural in inequitable society, where one man can hold so much wealth that he can cater to dozens of wives without feeling the lack. Almost every primitive society is polygamous. It is very natural to the human species, as is slavery and the subjugation of women.
I don’t personally believe monogamy should be enforced by society, and it certainly is not in this country. You can’t *marry* more than one woman, but you can certainly have plenty of sexual partners, simultaneously fathering children to them, without any punishment. If you can afford to.
But I think if people can be monogamous, if it is possible to choose that and be happy with it, it is probably a far easier life, and better for the children. That IF is a big IF, though. Can we choose our sexual preferences? I think we can, but only within a limited range. Ultimately, polygamy is probably very normal in our species and trying to deny it quite painful and hard. Only thoughts for the welfare of children will present a strong enough argument not to cheat around, and only for some people.
I think men are more inclined towards it than women, for evolutionary reasons. Some men gain an evolutionary advantage by spreading their seed widely. Women can only have so many children, so there is less reason to spread it round, indeed the welfare of the children may suggest that they stick to one father, so he will provide care. But even women gain evolutionary advantage from not keeping all their eggs in one basket. A pool of males looking after them and their children is better than just one. But I think the level of care a male gives a woman is usually directly related to their level of exclusivity. If they only get half the access they will only give half the care. So this polyamorous force is far less strong than the polygamous force.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Um you can bake another loaf of bread in an hour or two
You cannot bake another woman
Well you can but it will take 18 years and 9 months, and unless you have selective abortions based on the gender you will a roughly equal amount of other men to compete with
I am a socialist on this, we should aim for fair shares for all
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
A better story is the Beijing restaurant that has only penis on the menu, review with photos
Vote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/17/wfood17.xml
February 26th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
So, we should force monogamy onto people just so “someone else can have a wife”. So what, people must be forced into marrying whatever drongos are left if that arises?
If you’re worried about that, you can also consider that polygamy can be a natural process to imbalances in the sexes, i.e. a man drought, perhaps excessively due to war, say.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Polygamy is a system which is well-suited to certain types of assymetric warfare. By restricting the supply of women, you end up with a large pool of hot-blooded, frustrated young men with little to lose and much to prove. Couple that with the promise of 72 virgins in the next life, and you have the ideal terrorist recruitment tool.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
People can have many partners but dont want the responsibility of committing to those partners -it saps you emotionally and financially if there are too many “hangers on”. While sex with many women “on tap” is appealing for men (on a strictly fantasy level), to actually have to stick around and commit to all these women, support & raise their kids, and listen to all their daily problems is where polygamy becomes unappealing. Most men struggle with just one woman. While some men may have the skills to pull it off (& the time and money), most simply dont.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Ben summarizes well the evolutionary approach to polygamy. Polygamy will benefit men. That should really be “some” men as the majority will miss out to those few men with the wealth and power to maintain harems. The harems of the past were often huge – running into the thousands. Consequently it is in the interests of most men to have polygamy outlawed or at least classed as a taboo. Anti-polygamy laws are there to protect men, not women.
However, women have had a long history of working this system to their advantage as evidenced by the fact that some sperm are especially designed to kill the sperm of other men. After all, what better strategy for a woman than to have the security of a provider but get the genes (and entertainment) of the gardener.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Having been married to the same wonderful woman for 32 years I must say I take my hat off to those guys who manage 2 or more at the same time.They deserve admiration for the mental and physical stamina they must possess.
Vote: