Bigamy and adultery laws were invented largely to assure diversity in the gene pool and prevent general discontent among average males (though admittedly at the time, genes were completely unknown/understood.) Without these laws, all of the big dicks (for pleasure), and big wallets (for provision) would monopolize all of the women and sire all of the offspring, and by the women's choice not the men's. Also, despite the adultery laws, most of the time the big wallets would be unknowingly raising the big dicks' children. Brutal, yes, accurate, ???. Go ahead, rip me apart.
An unfortunate truth...
- Thread starter BowThands
- Start date
Are you talking about two days ago, twenty years ago or the settling of the American West?
[Assumes American West]
Cowboys were alcoholics and raping girls in towns, people were doing what they like, regardless of their endowment. It was a pretty lawless place.
And unless I was lied to, only Mormons were bigamists. And they were segregated and pushed out of all the states and ended up on their own in Salt Lake City. I'm pretty sure there weren't any laws permitting adultery in most places since most people were Christian.
Maybe that happens or happened in Mormon society, a monopoly (and because of status - being an elder - much more than endowment) but not in most of the world.
Not many people like to be shared or cheated on.
It's not accurate as far as I'm aware. It just sounds like something you've made up. Are you unhappy with your penis or something?
There were no rights for Women in the Wild West, they were prostitutes and fucktoys mainly and were the property of men; they wouldn't sire shedloads of children to various men by choice.
This is what I remember from History class...but at least it sounds like it could be true :tongue:
[Assumes American West]
Cowboys were alcoholics and raping girls in towns, people were doing what they like, regardless of their endowment. It was a pretty lawless place.
And unless I was lied to, only Mormons were bigamists. And they were segregated and pushed out of all the states and ended up on their own in Salt Lake City. I'm pretty sure there weren't any laws permitting adultery in most places since most people were Christian.
Maybe that happens or happened in Mormon society, a monopoly (and because of status - being an elder - much more than endowment) but not in most of the world.
Not many people like to be shared or cheated on.
It's not accurate as far as I'm aware. It just sounds like something you've made up. Are you unhappy with your penis or something?
There were no rights for Women in the Wild West, they were prostitutes and fucktoys mainly and were the property of men; they wouldn't sire shedloads of children to various men by choice.
This is what I remember from History class...but at least it sounds like it could be true :tongue:
Funny, I don't remember any of the PC shit from any of my history classes. But I'm a bit older than 20 - it was a different school system entirely 'way back then. I doubt you ever got to, say, the story of "Mrs. Cooke, putting out the fire the Indians had set in her roof with the blood of her dead husband while the children managed the guns." (quote from Fletcher Pratt, "The Heroic Years"). Fucktoys, eh? Dream on.
Polygny,= having many wives, existed before Adultery laws were devised. It actually helped the gene pool if an outsider were to sire a child with your wife BTW. Marriage as defined in the Bible made the wife the property of her husband. Adultery was a property crime. The wife/property was not free to do as she wished sexually. Yet her husband was free to partake of prostitutes , slaves and any woman who was not married.
Bowthands said:
Originally the women were the property of their fathers or some other male. Although a bridal price was needed her "owner" could still pick, chose and refuse her suitor. Nowadays in the western world bigamy is frowned upon and the woman does have a choice in the matter of marriage. Adultery is no longer considered a crime. However in the Eastern world the older traditions prevail. It is logical for a female to chose a finacially stable man of course as a primary consideration.
I wonder who will rip you apart Bowthands?
Have you been ripped before?
There were other people who practiced polygyny (wow someone else knew the term and I assume you know polyandry as well) in the old west. Many native american tribes allowed more than 1 spouse.
On a modern note, I was reading Cosmo at the doc's office because some of the stuff in there is actually interesting. One of the bits of information it stated was the results of a survey showing that 1 in 5 American men is raising a child that he THINKS is his and truly isn't. Guess there are a lot of mules kicking around in other's sheds?
On a modern note, I was reading Cosmo at the doc's office because some of the stuff in there is actually interesting. One of the bits of information it stated was the results of a survey showing that 1 in 5 American men is raising a child that he THINKS is his and truly isn't. Guess there are a lot of mules kicking around in other's sheds?
SomeGuyOverThere
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Posts
- 1,382
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 27
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Glasgow (Glasgow City, Scotland)
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I think polygamy can be healthy in certain cultures.
In a lot of tribal African cultures, brides had/have "prices", they weren't exactly sold, but the price had to be met by the potential husband to assure that he was rich enough to provide for her.
This meant that the successful, powerfull, wealthy men could have 3 or 4 wives while the poorer men only had 1 or 2.
Not quite a manopoly by the rich, but it's Natural Selection in action: the strong, powerfull men who are good at war and or farming have more wives and more kids, passing on the stronger genes.
It works in pretty much the opposite way than you are thinking - it doesnt make in-breeding a problem, but strengthans the tribe in the long run.
Obviously, with the "liberated" women in the west today, such things are impractiucal and only monogamy is accepted.
In a lot of tribal African cultures, brides had/have "prices", they weren't exactly sold, but the price had to be met by the potential husband to assure that he was rich enough to provide for her.
This meant that the successful, powerfull, wealthy men could have 3 or 4 wives while the poorer men only had 1 or 2.
Not quite a manopoly by the rich, but it's Natural Selection in action: the strong, powerfull men who are good at war and or farming have more wives and more kids, passing on the stronger genes.
It works in pretty much the opposite way than you are thinking - it doesnt make in-breeding a problem, but strengthans the tribe in the long run.
Obviously, with the "liberated" women in the west today, such things are impractiucal and only monogamy is accepted.
SomeGuyOverThere
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Posts
- 1,382
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 27
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Glasgow (Glasgow City, Scotland)
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Even the most flawed crap is worth countering if the person who spouts it believes in it... I mean, hell; look at Christianity!
I think the 'truth' is that there are significant differences in the sexual practices of different ethnic, socio-economic groups. People here supply only a sliver understanding of the real world. It might make some lurkers think that they are unusual when in fact they are the majority experience of society.
midlifebear
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Posts
- 5,789
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 179
- Points
- 133
- Location
- Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Little known truth about the lawless west: When Brigham Young died his physician did a secret, unauthorized autopsy whereupon it was discovered that he was actually a flaming queen.
True.
I read it on the Internet.
True.
I read it on the Internet.
midlifebear
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Posts
- 5,789
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 179
- Points
- 133
- Location
- Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
How dreadful!
Had he done a secret, unauthorized biography instead, he wouldn't have suffered those 3rd degree burns.:tongue:
Well, we all know the old saying about playing with fire . . . :smile:
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
in Human evolution, cultural constructs regarding mating are driven by the "cheap sperm, costly eggs" dynamic, tempered by a simple fact...
Women KNOW if a child is theirs.... men can not.
Women are driven by security issues because they can not possibly have as many offspring as a male potentially can... and each of their offspring requires from them a much greater investment in time and resources than the male is required to provide. They need a safe environment in which to raise their offspring... one with food shelter and security.
A man may sire bastards hither and yon without even knowing they were born... he can ensure his genetic legacy thru numbers... whereas a woman can only ensure her genetic legacy by making sure some of her children survive to reproduce.
Because we are self aware, and because we have material legacies as well as genetic ones, in the form of wealth, property, social standing, etc... Men would like to feel that they can have at least some children that they can be assured are theirs to hand down these other benefits...
Because being the child of a chief is a real enhancement to your gene's survival.
A male strategy, then, is to offer the woman the thing she wants, security, in exchange for the thing he wants... assurance that her children are also his children.
This, by the way is what is meant by the term "double standard".
Lots of folks think it means men having it all their way... it doesn't...
The double standard evolved because childbirth is risky as women age. Thru most of human history, childbirth was the leading cause of death in women.
At some point, if a woman wants to ensure HER children inherit the legacy, she must stop having sex with her husband ( in the pre-birth control days) but the man still wants to have sex...
But the worst thing that could happen to a woman, progeny-wise, is to die young... have the husband re-marry, and all the material and social legacy he has accrued be taken by the second wife's children ( the source of the "evil stepmother" image)
The double standard was the tacit negotiation that the wife would turn a blind eye to her husband's dalliances... and in return he would NEVER divorce her. Her future, her children's future, were secured. And he was allowed a hedge, just in case some of the children he was raising were, in fact, not his. (often the case)
Polygyny develops in cultures where wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few, or where life is so hard that acquiring wealth requires a larger number of people than a normal nuclear family.
It is not inherently a stable construct, because women, in more affluent settings, do not have to share social and material legacy with other women's children.
Thus, as women gain the options to provide their own security... or as the average man is better able to offer that security, women naturally demand single pair mating.
If the sheik is super rich... a woman getting one 20th of a kingdom for her children may be far better gamble than even a hard working regular guy could ever offer....
But in a society where woman may be much better off if she can provide her children with her own material legacy that she is assured of... that harem shit won't fly.
Women KNOW if a child is theirs.... men can not.
Women are driven by security issues because they can not possibly have as many offspring as a male potentially can... and each of their offspring requires from them a much greater investment in time and resources than the male is required to provide. They need a safe environment in which to raise their offspring... one with food shelter and security.
A man may sire bastards hither and yon without even knowing they were born... he can ensure his genetic legacy thru numbers... whereas a woman can only ensure her genetic legacy by making sure some of her children survive to reproduce.
Because we are self aware, and because we have material legacies as well as genetic ones, in the form of wealth, property, social standing, etc... Men would like to feel that they can have at least some children that they can be assured are theirs to hand down these other benefits...
Because being the child of a chief is a real enhancement to your gene's survival.
A male strategy, then, is to offer the woman the thing she wants, security, in exchange for the thing he wants... assurance that her children are also his children.
This, by the way is what is meant by the term "double standard".
Lots of folks think it means men having it all their way... it doesn't...
The double standard evolved because childbirth is risky as women age. Thru most of human history, childbirth was the leading cause of death in women.
At some point, if a woman wants to ensure HER children inherit the legacy, she must stop having sex with her husband ( in the pre-birth control days) but the man still wants to have sex...
But the worst thing that could happen to a woman, progeny-wise, is to die young... have the husband re-marry, and all the material and social legacy he has accrued be taken by the second wife's children ( the source of the "evil stepmother" image)
The double standard was the tacit negotiation that the wife would turn a blind eye to her husband's dalliances... and in return he would NEVER divorce her. Her future, her children's future, were secured. And he was allowed a hedge, just in case some of the children he was raising were, in fact, not his. (often the case)
Polygyny develops in cultures where wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few, or where life is so hard that acquiring wealth requires a larger number of people than a normal nuclear family.
It is not inherently a stable construct, because women, in more affluent settings, do not have to share social and material legacy with other women's children.
Thus, as women gain the options to provide their own security... or as the average man is better able to offer that security, women naturally demand single pair mating.
If the sheik is super rich... a woman getting one 20th of a kingdom for her children may be far better gamble than even a hard working regular guy could ever offer....
But in a society where woman may be much better off if she can provide her children with her own material legacy that she is assured of... that harem shit won't fly.
Similar threads
