Polygamy vs polyandry – The reason for double standard

I am always fascinated by some civil laws inside Bible in Old Testament. It seems that there are a lot of laws that treated men and women with different standard especially regarding sex, marriage, and promiscuity.

Female promiscuity inside Old Testament was condemned (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21) and Bible silent about legality of polyandry. Many times God talked through prophets in Old Testament depicting Israel’s idol worship like a prostitute who sleep with men. In contrast, polygamy seems OK for male in Old Testament since it was regulated in Law of Moses (Exodus 21: 10; Deuteronomy 21: 15-17) and God said He gave David all king Saul’s wives (2 Samuel 12: 7-8). And even in New Testament, several times Lord Jesus used polygamy for illustration of relationship between Himself and the church (Matthew 25: 1-13).

There are some objections for polygamy. For example, many say that polygamy is a form of adultery, it beg a question: If polygamy is a form of adultery then why the penalty for adulterer is stoning (Deuteronomy 22: 22) whereas polygamy was regulated? Then, there is also argument that since in the beginning, God created one male and one female then the ideal marriage is supposed to be monogamy. But then if we want to make today’s marriage like marriage before fall then we also need to become vegetarians and walking around naked. But strangely, no monogamy proponents who is also advocate of public nudity or vegetarianism.

For those verses in Old and New Testament, I am convinced that polygamy is still legal for Christians today although I think it is difficult to do and need extra precaution (It is difficult enough to feed one wife in this modern time, even more for multiple wives!) and I would not recommend it for social reason.

But then how about polyandry? What is the reason that polygamy is legal while polyandry is not even mentioned or probably illegal? It is a mystery to me until I saw the comment on a blog about this topic.

One man said it got something to do with tracking of children’s parents. When one man has multiple wives and each of man’s wife got pregnant, the father and mother for each children can be known. Reverse the gender, and the thing become complicated. If father of a child is unknown, it will raise difficulty on who is supposed to raise a child and later will cause problem when determining inheritance.

In addition, men usually want to have children. If a women has 4 husbands and each of her husband want 2 children, she need to get pregnant and raise 8 children. Unless she can somehow get house-husbands who are willing to take care of her children, it will be very hectic for her.

The third reason why polygamous men are more respected than polygamous women is related to difficulty in getting multiple partners. Traditionally, in order for a guy to be able to attract many women, he needs to be either strong, intelligent, rich or powerful person. Those attributes need to be obtained by a lot of efforts. In contrast, for a women to attract many men, the only thing she needs is beautiful face or sexy body and…..ahem, seductive attitude.

I will surely raise many comments and critiques by this post. However, most of these reasons are not my original opinion and feel free to speak your mind.

About edwinlt

I am currently Indonesian expatriate working in Singapore. I am currently working as security researcher in National University of Singapore. I write this blog to share to readers about my life principle on various aspects, like religion, politics, business, relationship, and technology. I am interested in alternative worldviews because I found that many things taught to us by establishments are not true and harmful. My dream is to become self-sufficient in food and energy. Hopefully, someday I can have my own fruit garden and my own power plant and able to sell my electricity to power company. I hope readers enjoy my blog.
This entry was posted in Marriage and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Polygamy vs polyandry – The reason for double standard

  1. write2sketch says:

    Walking around naked is not so much of a biblical thing but an act of consideration thing. There are a few reasons people don’t walk around naked even of it is allowed or legal:

    1. It gets cold.
    2. People around u feel uncomfortable.

    It’s like singing. It’s perfectly okay to sing. But not in the library. Not in the mrt. Not in the parliament. It’s called public nuisance.

    It’s like being naked. U can be naked in front of ur wife. U can be naked during a naked pool party in Vegas. But if u are naked in the bus or in the streets, it’s called public nuisance.

    It has nothing to do with biblical stuff.

    • edwin2026 says:

      This article is not meant to discuss public nudity. I just mentioned it to point inconsistency for people that argue marriage should be monogamy to model Adam and Eve.

  2. wj says:

    Hi. I have been mulling over this for some time, and been holding my tongue and waiting to look at what other people have to say about this potentially divisive issue.

    Let me say right up front, that I am not man-hating. I do not wish to rule over men. My agenda of living does not entail a revolution of women taking over the entire world and subjugating men to slavery. My desire is that women are treated as equals by men. And that women treat men as their equals. Galatians 3:28 says that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ”.

    Indeed, polygamy was legal among the Jews during the time of Jesus. (Women in Palestine were not allowed to divorce their husbands. Men, on the other hand, could divorce women simply by giving her a writ of divorce.) Polygamy was perceived as more acceptable because during that culture, women were thought of as child-bearers and rearers, nothing more. Looking at some of the arguments that you have quoted above is rather telling. It looks like women are still seen solely as child-bearers. The issue of inheritance and children being intimately linked to women is a prevalent theme that runs through the arguments quoted.

    It boils down to the question of gender roles. Jesus undermined the prevalent notions of gender. Mainstream understandings of gender dictate that women are the more emotional species, and men the more intellectual ones. Therefore women are natural nurturers, and would best serve at home and care for babies, instead of flourishing at the workplace. It seems that we can’t think straight compared to men. This is in itself, an assumption that is culture bound, since Jesus Himself openly wept (John 11:35) when Lazarus died. He also wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44). Jesus assumed quite a subservient, ‘feminine’ position of washing the feet of His disciples (John 13:1-17). He also actually prepared breakfast for His disciples (John 21:1-25). He allowed Mary to sit together with the male disciples, and listen to His teaching, and study (therefore, employing her mental faculties). This, even though rabbinic tradition dictated that “Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman …Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her lasciviousness. ” according to first century Rabbi Eliezer. In fact, Peter Ketter, noted, “A rabbi regarded it as beneath his dignity, as indeed positively disreputable, to speak to a woman in public. The Proverbs of the Fathers’ contain the injunction: “Speak not much with a woman.” (Leonard Swidler) Women were the inferior ones then. While Moses commanded that a woman charged with adultery be stoned to death (Deut 22:22), Jesus challenged this idea by treating a woman accused of adultery with compassion.

    More significantly, Jesus redeemed by breaking the conventions of gender and setting women as equal to men. It is also not biblical to confine someone to the role of child rearing on the basis of gender. 1 Corinthians 12:1-11 talks about spiritual giftings. Imagine confining a woman to the role of childbearing when she could be doing so much more to contribute to the church and to her community because of the spiritual gifts that she has been blessed with.

    Finally, let’s look at other parts of scripture to wrestle with the idea of polygamy. Is it okay? From the beginning, it is after the fall that polygamy occurs. Eve was taken from Adam’s body and given back to Adam. (and in relation to your argument that we should all go nude since Adam and Eve is the model of marriage, are you also suggesting that women must still be stoned for adultery? Obviously, some issues in the OT are no longer applicable. Women have more rights today, and more of us are entitled to education. It was after the fall that our curse came, that men and women would strive to rule over each other, and that childbirth would be painful. Childbirth is still painful, but is taking medication to mitigate the pain a sin, since it is God’s perfect will that we have pain when we give birth? Of course not. We are not redeemed by this curse, but rather, by the redeeming act of Jesus who came to break this curse) It wasn’t until after the fall that polygamy occurred because Lamech was the first person, the descendant of Cain, to practise polygamy. Polygamy was permitted, but it was not explicitly supported by God. In Deut. 17:14-17, it is said: “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’ “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.”

    I hope that whatever I say has not offended anyone in any way. The bottom-line is really a question of gender roles. And gender roles shift according to culture. Jesus has redeemed women, and it is a matter of opinion that insists that women are to be assimilated into the plans of men who want to continue their bloodlines instead of women being seen as individuals in their own right, not a matter of scripture.

    • edwin2026 says:

      Why you are so concerned about this thing that you still comment this until so long? I thought we discussed this already -.-.

      Reading Galatians 5: 28 verse should be interpreted by previous verses. It is said in verse 26 that we are all sons of God because we are baptized with same name. So, it simply means that our identity as sons of God (or Christians) take precedence upon our nationality or gender. It cannot be used to somehow support ‘equal right’ concept which only emerge 19 centuries later. If you take that verse isolated, then we should dress alike, talk alike, work alike, and so on since it was said ‘we are one in Christ Jesus’. I can also say that we should have sexual relationship with all congregations. Your wife or husband is also mine and hence we are really become ‘one’.

      For regarding equal treatment with men, you seem to believe in universal human right. It is a concept brought by a bunch of secular philosophers and politicians such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They are not even Christians. Please don’t think that somehow secular philosophy can take precedence upon God’s Law. It is also not logical if you think about it. There is no fully equal individual and hence the notion that somehow all of us can have the same ‘right’ in all things is ridiculous to me. They even don’t enforce it consistently. If really all people should have equal right to pursue happiness, why don’t allow children to buy pornography, drug, cigarette, or gun?

      As to argument from culture, you may as well denying any command in Bible by telling that ‘culture has changed’ or ‘Christ has liberated us from law bondage’. After all, how do you determine which issue in Old Testament does or does not apply? It is no other than cultural trends surround you or even your own feeling. You can do that with polygamy, why can’t you do that with homosexuality, incest, bestiality, prostitution, adultery, blood-eating, and various nasty things disallowed in Old Testament? Obviously, this is not only ridiculous but also not true. Those who said that are false teachers who changed grace into license of immorality (Jude 1: 4) because Lord Jesus himself said that he come not to cancel the Law but to fulfill the Law and anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5: 17-19). As for stoning of adultery, I told you already that the command is still valid but the civil punishment is not (or you want to say adultery is also ok?)

      The verse in Deuteronomy 17:14-17 is applied to king and not all people. The same with prohibition for church elders to have more than one wife in new testament. Elders were not allowed to have many wives because they are supposed to be involved in serving people, not his wives or family. It is also reason why apostle Paul did not marry. I can say that because the elsewhere there is also a law for regulating polygamy. And also how it is not clear enough polygamy is allowed when God himself said that He was the one that gave David wives (2 Samuel 12: 8)?

      As regarding to feminine side and nice attitude towards woman of Lord Jesus, it is nothing new or revolutionary actually. Women leaders were already exist in Old Testament(remember Miriam, Deborah, Jezebel and Esther?) and God was also depicted as mother (Isaiah 49: 15; 66: 13) . However, the notion that women and men can and must have same role, same responsibility and same right is very new. Not only it is not logical, I will outright say it is stupid.

      It seems to me that you are somehow convinced that if there is a certain expectation for us as our own gender then it is something annoying or oppressive. Expectation come all the times. Even you don’t believe in gender role, we also have expectation as parents, children, worker, citizen, church members and so on. The correct way is not to avoid (since it is impossible to avoid) but how to manage it. The notion that somehow every individual need to be completely free from any expectation and responsibility to pursue what they want is more like american dreams than the real world.

  3. wj says:

    My only concern is that expectations become crippling when they marginalize and send specific individuals who deviate from the norm to the fringes. We often criminalize the homosexual or the transvestite because they don’t fit our conceptions of gender. What we think as right or wrong won’t even apply to their circumstances because like it or not, they don’t care, they are here to stay and we should see them as human too. The trouble begins when gender is seen as mutually exclusive and no one can thread the boundaries without experiencing some form of injustice being done against them. If you have a male friend who prefers to stay at home and take care of babies, are you going to accept his lifestyle or see him as being less masculine and therefore not a real man? Are you going to say that what he is doing is “outright stupid”? That to me, is not Christlike. This affects men too, not just women. I will say no more because clearly my intentions are being misinterpreted.

    • edwin2026 says:

      Wuijia, I would not say that any commands in Old Testament as mentioned previously as cultural norm and I hope you too. Or are you saying that God’s moral command can change according to times? What I think is stupid is our politicians’ effort to make men and women have the same role, same responsibility and same right in all things. I am not talking about individual behavior nor gender role.

      You are talking continuously about gender role. You know that gender role and polygamy is two separate things right? I already said to you that even in Old Testament, women can become prophet, judge and queen. And talking about Christlikeness, you should see what Lord Jesus said himself to those people who claimed to be our brother but kept sinning (Matthew 18: 15-17):

      If your brother sins (against you), go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses’. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

      So that applies to any moral commands in Old Testament, including homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, slander, and so on. Of course, if non-Christian person wants to have such lifestyle then it is none of our business. We can only be nice to him and then offer him to follow Christ if he wants.

      You are keeping change topics, you know? First, you are talking about homosexuality then talking about gender role as if those are same issues. Homosexuality is not accepted whereas no command for ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ jobs. Homosexuality is not when men become nurse or women become army. Homosexuality is defined in Old Testament as people with same gender having sexual intercourse (Leviticus 18: 22). I previously said that I am not against state legalizing gay marriage but that is state not church.

  4. wj says:

    tread the boundaries, not thread.

  5. wj says:

    Thanks for revealing my identity.
    Gender roles and polygamy are not two separate issues. Polygamy was legal at a time when women were perceived as inferior, and mostly seen as child-bearers who carry the name of men. So the role of women was solely as mother and housekeeper. It would make sense to marry more women then to carry on one’s bloodline. I mentioned culture because the culture then was very denigrating towards women. This is connected to how women are perceived as nothing more than helping to promote the bloodline. While men went for their usual battles, women on the other hand, engaged in a different battle to produce offspring. Take the example of Rachel and Leah. But the treatment of women now is different. Because we can do more things like get an education and get employed. So we aren’t seen as child-bearers only. In countries where polygamy is not legal, the basis of this is that it is to protect the rights of women, since the advancement of women’s rights movement. This is what I mean by culture boundness.

    I mentioned homosexuality because gender is linked to gender roles and to sexuality. The status quo is that a man would express masculinity and would desire women (heterosexual). A man is perceived to be physically stronger and more intellectually competent, so he is expected to be head of the household and to lead. Woman on the other hand are perceived as weaker and therefore expected to be led. They are emotional beings and so should take care of babies. So status quo says that man and woman are two categories who would complement each other and therefore should be attracted to each other. So man->masculinity (strength)->attracted to women, and woman->femininity (softness)-> attracted to men. Man should not try to cross over into the woman’s sphere, otherwise he will be laughed at by his friends. For instance, if a man is seen crying, or shows some form of femininity, it is not socially acceptable. Crying=softness, and which equation should softness be in? Woman->femininity(softness)->attracted to men. Also, if a man desires another man, he is seen as effeminate too. Which equation should softness and attraction to men be in? This is what I mean. Gender and gender roles are linked to sexuality.

    I think that when one is seen as equal to the other, then it wouldn’t be so bad if man sometimes expressed softness. Why is softness so terrible? Is it so terrible to be womanlike? What is wrong with womanliness or being woman? It must have something to do with the fact that women are inferior to men. If culture celebrates male dominance (man->masculinity (strength) ->lead women), it also marginalizes some men who are not seen as real men. Looking at the equation, men who are not strong or masculine are not leaders. They are therefore not real men. These men are the ones that we too often laugh at. The boy who could not throw a ball and was called a sissy by his coach (“Why do you throw like a girl?”). The boy who was a geek and stayed in class, composing poems (women->softness->emotional->more verbally expressive/artistic, therefore the poet is not a real man and has to be gay), while the rest of his friends played basketball.

    Sin is sin. I did not indicate in any way that sins are acceptable now compared to last time. It is the attitude towards the sinner that I was criticizing. Homosexuality is laughed at, or joked about, because it is transgressive. If you listen carefully to what Christians joke about, a guy who wears a shocking pink shirt is teased at – “Woah you look damn gay”. If we break down this teasing and look at the ideas that are underlying this teasing, pink=softness. Softness should be in the equation where women are. The mentality underlying this is that man must not express any hint of softness. Otherwise he will be laughed at or given a lot of attention that is not of the positive kind. So if a man wants to break down and cry in church because he feels overwhelmed by life’s burdens, it would be difficult to do so. And we cannot be accountable to one another if we can’t be ourselves because gender equations are dominating the way we see each other. Also, for the gay who wants to come to church and experience the Lord, and faces no form of overt discrimination, yet sees that men are teasing other men for being gay, would the gay man feel accepted? What I’m saying is that gender is tied to gender roles, which is in turn, linked to sexuality. And all these assumptions carve the way we view the opposite gender. Discrimination comes when someone crosses over into the opposite gender’s equation.

    This was what I was trying to say. I mentioned how Jesus, too, expressed some forms of femininity because it is linked to those equations above (Man-masculine (strength)-leader). So i was not changing topics.

    Have I made myself clear?

    • edwin2026 says:

      Wuijia. As for pranks against gays, you can virtually find any pranks against any specific groups in the internet whether it is race, gender, nationality, social status, occupation and so on. Why do you only focus on specific groups (namely women and gays)? Furthermore, in which part of my article I exhibit any languages that showed hatred against those groups of people?

      Seeing from your reasoning, I think that your Bible understanding is distorted because you are influenced too much by your philosophical view (namely liberation theology and Marxism). You keep pointing out women’s oppression as if history consists of a set of class warfare by two majors groups which are oppressors and victims. Marxist thinking also did the same thing. In fact, they also think that any kind of different treatment is oppression and hence there are not supposed to be any hierarchy in society whether it is men v women, parent v children, citizen v immigrant, white people v black people and even God v human (for atheist Marxist).

      This kind of paradigm is dangerous because as Christian, we are supposed and foremost assumed that our Scripture is true before we adopt (or partially adopt) any kind of worldly philosophy. Many of them are not even Christians. Karl Marx is not Christian, he is atheist. So, his worldview carried assumptions that are not shared by Christians. We cannot first assume that Marx is right then did selective Bible reading to the passages that seems to ‘support’ equality. By such reading, we put men’s thought above God’s Word. Furthermore, if you already have faith that his philosophy is right, no amount of Bible passages I can show to you can change your mind. Even if I pointed out some contradictory verses, you will just find articles in internet that explain away such verses to do rationalization.

      Furthermore, his philosophy is only partially right. His way of dividing people is too simplistic assuming that classes cannot corporate in ethical way to achieve favorable outcome for both. It is not necessary that if one belongs to powerful class then he will abuse his status to oppress inferior classes. Another of incorrect assumption is that total equality for outcome as something desirable since any type of hierarchy implies unequal outcome and hence oppression. We simply cannot share such assumption because we have God. Do you want to say that God is oppressive and evil? If you really want to apply his philosophy consistently then you will be atheist and communist.

      I can see you already made your mind that history largely consists of men’s oppression over women. Never mind that in the Bible, some women are shown to commit probably greater crimes than men. Eve made death come for entire human race, you know? Jezebel threatened Elijah, who was prophet of God, to kill him and also snatched inheritance of innocent men to satisfy her husband. Furthermore, you ignore also some institutionalized practices which ‘discriminate’ men, such as conscription and chivalry. Why does just because we are men then we subject to compulsory service to the state, of which we never receive single penny? It is a form of slavery, I can tell you. And why does chivalry code tell men to sacrifice his life for his family? Why does I need to do certain heroic conducts just because I am man? I can as well ask my wife to go anywhere by herself (even to crime-prone areas) by reasoning since women are the same as men then just go alone there yourself.

      As I said previously, such expectations exist and it is not necessarily oppressive. In fact, if any type of expectation is oppressive then you may as well conclude that God is oppressive since He has many commands to be followed. Expectation put predictability and order in society and helps human to relate to each others.

      • wj says:

        I did not say that men are not oppressed. Aren’t gays men too? In fact, in my examples I centred on men because gender myths expect men to be strong all the time. In the Bible there is equal amount of evil done by both sexes yes I know that. Institutionalised practices discriminate against men because of the gender equations themselves. (man->masculinity->leadership).
        Of course I could go on about how specific other individuals are marginalized but frankly I’m quite tired of arguing with you, and I don’t want to take up so much time talking about postcolonial times because that will take up a lot of space. Gender is not an isolated variable and it is linked to ethnicity and class.
        If you think that your version of understanding the Bible is completely right or objective, think again. None of us are free from biases or prejudices. From the moment we were raised as children we have already been exposed to specific views that would predispose us towards thinking a certain way. If you wish to judge my faith or my own walk with God by suggesting that I put man’s word over God’s, what can I do?
        Our experiences would have conditioned us to understand God in a certain way. To claim that you have got it all right and that you know which version is most neutral is a fallacy.
        Of course any theory would have its shortcomings. Each one theory is just one way of seeing the world. No one can see the world in the most omniscient way. Are you saying that you yourself are free of such rationalization or biases? If that is the case, you should tell everyone else to remain silent and shut down their blogs and only your blog should be publicized, because only your views, or those who echo yours, are free of such biases. The comments section are meant for this dialogue. If you can’t even be open to dialogue, and only your own voice should be heard, that, in my view, is arrogance.
        I am not proposing that there is a class war going on. From the beginning, I already mentioned that I am not proposing for a revolution to happen. I am simply pointing out how certain assumptions cause some people to be marginalized. And since your post began with polygamy I continued by adding what I thought would be relevant to it which is gender and gender roles. To talk about other things would be a change of topic wouldn’t it.
        I’m going off your blog now. Bye.

      • edwin2026 says:

        Wuijia, I don’t say that my version of theology is the most correct ones. I am willing to change my view if it is proven wrong. I have debated in a lot of online forum and changed my view as the result of viewing the debate and also participating into it. Initially, I also used to believe in classical doctrine such as omniscience and omnipotence. I only heard from my pastor’s point of views but after I saw how another theologian (Greg Boyd) expose the fallacies inside it then I realized it is not defensible.

        I also do not adopt all Greg Boyd’s theology. He is a pacifist which I think also not correct view. I explained that in my previous post.

        My view on usury and rent has also changed. Originally, I thought that it is a smart way to invest. Now, after I thought about it and heard explanation from various sources , I realize it is wrong as well. So, I am not stubborn person that don’t want to change my view in all aspects as you said.

        Having say all of these, I think that it is not a good idea to be heavily influenced by only one philosopher or theologian especially non-Christian ones. What I observe from your various views (women’s right, gay’s right, death penalty, Obama and so on) that you seem to have very one-sided view(leans towards egalitarianism). In my opinion, it is not a good thing. Just try to learn arguments from opposite sides and make adjustment if necessary.

        I can understand it is hard to adjust your mind especially if issue is related to our own gender (polygamy) but I have done the same thing with investment and insurance. I have to terminate my life insurance although I already paid for $2400, you know? I also have stopped monthly installment for my bond investment because of my change of understanding for interest.

        I do think there are bad things about gender role perception. I can see your point that society perception on gender role did limit some people to do what they want. But this stereotype does not include physical threat to force people to confirm. You can choose not to follow the trend although it is not very popular. However, such thing is better compared to use unending affirmative action policy which are implemented by force, does not achieve its intended result, and reduces the quality of institutions (some people are just selected because they are female) and even still impose discrimination to other classes (especially men).

        Don’t tired for discussion. As long as the discussion is done in rational and polite way, just keep continue to learn what your opponent think and vice versa.

  6. wj says:

    Yeah. Okay. Maybe I keep thinking that you’re scolding me, but it’s just the way you write. Very INTP-ish.
    And, I learnt one thing. “Arguing with an engineer is a lot like wrestling in the mud with a pig. After a few hours, you realise that he likes it”
    Happy birthday INTP.

  7. The agony of sexual jealousy was one more pain that the men who ruled in ancient times chose to protect themselves from through marriage laws, but not their women, who they viewed as chattels more than human beings with equal rights. I must challenge some of your defences given for the permission of multiple partners for men and not women. In this age of DNA testing and reliable contraception, the traceability of paternal lineage argument breaks down, especially as it’s inconsistent with the other argument about patriarchy being all about the community making sure nobody’s left out. If it was about that, nobody would need to know who the fathers were because the community would care for mothers and children out of love and not ownership and control.
    Also, the idea that it’s easier for men to acquire women than the other way around and that no special skills are required of a woman to lure men apart from looks but men draw women because of mens’ skills and brains falls down as soon as you look around you. Look at all the brainy beautiful women with men on a lesser lever with these things. Liberated women with means will choose men for the same criteria as men choose women – for a combination of looks and personality, including brains. That’s evolution at play and when ugly old men go off with gorgeous young women, that’s capitalism and a kind of prostituion at play, not ‘nature’. The double standard about polygamy vs polyandry is about who had the power in those times – clearly men, and all the arguments for it are rationalisations after that fact. Western women who take part is the absurd situation of living/dressing like a prisoner so the husband need never even esperiance a moment’s jealousy when another man’s eye passes over the wife’s hair/body and then accept him having other wives are letting down the hardwon tradition of rights for women. And men who take part in such arrangements must be hard bastards to let two/more women compete over them like so many contract labourers in competition for his inflated self.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s