A Return Of Polygamy?

Polygamy, more accurately polygyny (one man, several women), as a social and marital structure has existed among humans since the dawn of history. According to Ethnographic Atlas, of the 1,231 recorded contemporary societies, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, only 186 were monogamous, and 4 had polyandry (one woman, several men). Due to the primitive nature of ancient civilizations, the practice was, possibly, much more widespread. It is referenced in the religious texts of the era (e.g., The Bible, the Qur'an, et al.).

Some survival writers have theorized that in a complete collapse, there may be a return of this form of structure in western societies, in which, with very few exception, the practice is taboo and, indeed, illegal. The fictional film Dr. Strangelove, even had the titular character opining that it was necessary for the survival of the human race, following the complete nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviets.

I realize this is, perhaps, a curious topic, but survival discussions often involve such "what ifs". What would the male members think? More importantly, and why it is in this section, how would the members of the fair sex view this marital structure making a sudden return to western civilization?

(P.S. For me, this is academic. I am, after all, a happily married man, with a loving family. )

 

Okay because one of my degrees is in Sociology I am going to go all academic here and say that it would depend upon the SHTF scenario. For example, in the case of an epidemic the populations that are historically hit the hardest are the elderly, women, and children. Both children and the elderly have compromised immune systems, whereas women are biologically more complex than men and rely upon a delicate physiological balence. That means in the case of a contagion the female population would drop dramatically for generations (as women and young girls would be especially hard hit). Which of course would suck because if a female population drops below 40% extinction is inevitable. At that point it doesn't matter how many men exist, one man can contribute his DNA to many women so they are biologically less important- DNA degradation requires new female DNA. Extinction will occur. Did I mention I also studied genetics?

This kind of scenario (contagion) would lend itself to Polyandry. In order to protect the remaining female population it would be important to have more male protection from any lawlessness so the species does not go extinct. This is incidentally one reason why we see Fraternal polyandry in Nepal, China, and Northern India. Another reason being females were historically discarded after birth. In short scarcity. This is also why we see Polyandry in different countries in Africa. When females become less common, historically their value goes up. In the old west for example, rape was punished by immediate execution. We would see this again. I would also like to point out that Polyandry was a lot more common that your numbers, but no one tracked it and many universities still don't- especially in Middle Eastern countries and conservative Mediterranean areas. For example, recently there have been historians who revealed that Spartans had state sponsored reproduction, which meant that some women did have two husbands, while others could protest the quality of child their spouse had given them and request a different male father their offspring. Likewise the husband could request his wife seek another male specifically to father his next child (although not biologically his, it was considered his and he took credit for the child). In the ancient world this was very taboo among Athenians (most of our data about the ancient world comes from Athens or Rome- FYI Rome purged documents discussing Polyandry) so it went unmentioned in a lot of Athenian documents, but recent discoveries have led archaeologists to believe that Polyandry was a lot more common than previously discussed. That said research into the matter still remains minimal, as it is a taboo subject in the modern world and hard to get a grant for.

That said I don't think widespread Polyandry would occur here. Overseas perhaps but not in America unless it is taken out of the hands of the public and legally enforced like in Sparta. But as Polyandry is very taboo in America I think it more likely that you would see an Ethiopian model of matrimony where a woman has many husbands but not at the same time, all divorced men are then required by social norms to provide for the children, whether he fathered them or not, because the entire tribe considers any of her past husbands, fathers to all her children. I think you can see why I think this would be more likely, especially given a high child mortality rate and how easily people divorce today.

That said, given our current technology I find an EMP more likely. An EMP would probably produce a different scenario. In that case I think Polygamy would be more common than it is today. Why? Because although you would see a dramatic drop in female population as a result of lawlessness and lack of medical facilities, one of the largest populations that would be prepared for such an event would be the Mormon church and one of the tenets in the Book of Mormon is polygamy. Some women would naturally seek the protection adequate resources provide both to them and their children. There's also a genetic propensity there to choose the fittest male, and among apes that does not always mean physically dominant.

Naturally since they would be reproducing Mormons would become a larger portion of the population than they are currently which would make their beliefs more normalized. As for non-Mormons I think it would be unlikely especially among Christians since Polygamy was seen as arising out of Sara and Abrahams lack of faith and Hagar whose son is viewed as the father of Islam is seen as a generational punishment to all of Abrahams offspring and the Christians. Additionally Jesus talked of one wife, and Adam was given one wife. So that's pretty much viewed as the way things should be in a lot of Christian denominations.

Now the question then becomes this: Does this deviation in world views result in a secondary conflict that could make human beings even more scarce?

 

PS What is your ideal society?

My ideal society would still be one male and one female, married, with kids, and extended family close or in the same house. It would also be Christian.

 

So lets look at a scenario say a pandemic! a severe pandemic is most likely to kill approx. equal portions of males and females!
But after when it has gone to hell in a handbasket it will be the males between 12yo and sixty odd that will go out scavenging
Scavenging will be a high risk activity any females involved will suffer greatly so any smart group will not let females out scavenging
So lots of males will go scavenging, lots ofthose males will encounter other males and a contest for any scavenged goods will ensue!
It will only take one percent of encounters to be fatal every day that the number of males will be greatly reduced.
That will lead to greater competition and greater loss's until an equilibrium is reached probably after 60-70% of males failing!
Some females will be forced to scavenge but these will not last long as they will be killed and or captured/used!

Further down the track accomadtions will be made with the surviving successful men for them to protect several females and any children!
This will apply to a lesser extent to married men still with a surviving original wife!
Successful single men will have women whos partners failed seeking protection and desperate to be under the protection of a male, not so much for there sakes but for any children!

Depending on the individual circumstances there maybe just a single male protecting a homestead of up to ten or so women/mothers with kids! god help that man he will need it!

I know I would not turn out a mates family because he up and got himself killed! His family would become part of mine, mistress maybe maybe not!
and If I happened upon a woman and kids I would if I thought it safe to do so take them in again maybe mistress maybe not!
A lone male then with several women would need to get very diplomatic and careful!
Each should get a night alone with the man sex or no sex in rotation! and in confidence!

Monday mandy, Tuesday tessi, Wednesday wendy, Thursday terry, Friday franciene, Saturday sally, Sunday sophie!

Not sure if this is a dream or a nightmare? closer to nightmare I think!

 

Wow. That's a high number. Too high frankly. In India where the 1918 Influenza Epidemic killed the most people, only 50 out of a 1000 people died. That's 5% of the population dying. The 1918 Influenza had a higher mortality rate than previous influenza epidemics. And more people died during the 1918 epidemic than during WWI. So that's a bit far fetched for me.

Also men and women aren't that similar. In order for that situation to occur it would have to be a Y chromosome specific epidemic. Immune system function is generally an X chromosome thing, thus more for a virus to mess with, with women. Having two different chromosomes offers men some protection.

While I can buy an almost male specific pandemic, after all has to happen sometime it can't all be x specific and it isn't. I can't see those numbers dropping. It's outside of all historical events minus the plague which was at highest estimations 25% and used rats as carriers and went from house to house. Not a lot of carriers like that now a days.

But, yeah, pretty sure that would be a nightmare for everyone, Arkane. Not to mention the fact that most women would be so traumatized by loosing all their male relatives that, they might accept protection but probably not sex, ever. Then there is that Harvard study on female sexuality being fluid... don't know that I bought that study, but if true you'd be looking at a lot of your wives being lesbians just like a lot of males in Ancient Greece were gay. Needless to say the whole world would change so much that the odds of meeting anyone alive would be unlikely. At that point marriage would probably not exist. Christianity would probably totally break down. I don't think that world would be heaven, that's for sure.

https://virus.stanford.edu/uda/

 

I would agree with lonewolf there. Males would be more likely to survive and if the numbers were that high we would go extinct. But pandemics are not that high, at least they have not ever been. If they ever were to, then yes we'd all die.

But humans have hundreds of thousands of years of immunity and immune system adaptations earned throughout the years by all the deaths that have occurred since our species began. All the fittest genetics go into everyone alive today, even our sickest frailest people are infinitely better genetically adapted than the cave men were. Not stronger physically mind you but stronger immune system wise.

For example Sickle-cell anaemia is viewed as a bad thing because it limits the life expectancy to between 40-60 years- but it occurs uniquely where the life expectancy is around 40-60 years anyway and it is common where Malaria is prevalent. Sickle-cell Anaemia, a genetic adaptation caused by a chromosomal anomaly, cannot prevent infection- mosquitoes infect people by biting them- but it can ward off Malaria by not allowing it to affect the body. Thus it is a highly advantageous adaptation in that part of the world- certain parts of Africa and India- where Malaria kills off or renders sterile parts of the population.

This is why so many (many is still not whole tribes, 5% of the population in India as mentioned above, is many, in my mind) of the Native Americans died before the white man ever reached their territory. They were isolated from all the outbreaks and thus never adapted immunity. The entire world was adapting for centuries and they weren't. Now a days that level of isolation doesn't exist and hasn't since Columbus. It's made for stronger genetics, although it has been paid for in a lot of blood. We've adapted and we'll continue doing so like most species, unless we go extinct- like the crocodile, it reached perfection and stopped changing.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm

 

hi there, I'm not a fan of polygamy but if I am always on what makes people happy, if these people who live in polygamy still manage to make each other happy and satisfy each other emotionally as well as physically then I don't mind it but some poor men want to marry two or three wives just because it is accepted by their religion and they end up getting family problems due to the facts that they won't be able to satisfy all of their needs, so my point is important to consider the ability to take responsibilities and charges before engaging in polygamy .

 

America before it went to hell in a handbasket.

Perhaps. However, one theory about why polygamy was practiced in the ancient Near East was warfare reduced the number of males, while the number of females were not reduced accordingly so. On the flipside, in the American Old West, men outnumbered women considerably. I suppose the type of SHTF event and the social implications of said would be the determining factor.

 

It could end up being necessary for the survival of the human race. Men and women both are good at different roles, despite our equality. If there were more women left than men, then it would be needed for reproduction and repopulation of the planet. Even though it is illegal at the moment in a lot of countries, in times of catastrophe it may be tolerated. There would be no law as such anyway, so we should take it upon ourselves to accept it. Even if it does go against our principles. Any group of people left will have to think of the importance and the means towards repopulation.

 

I don't agree with the notion that more males would survive outnumbering the females. It is a known fact that females are designed by nature to survive long distance trekking albeit migration and the ability to withstand stress much more than males. In that case, males are the ones mostly killed, talk about war, disaster, whatever. And then you end up with more women, they being the center of it all, a whole generation can then rise with only one male to every 10 females if you like. That mean polygamy.

 

Interesting perspective, @Maria_C . I recently read about a few studies that confirm women's immune system is more robust than men. One of the papers was from researchers at Ghent University (Belgium) that found a genetic component to the phenomenon.

Another study found that women are 14% more likely to survive a traumatic injury than men. There is an interesting quote from one of the researchers:

"I know some people may think women are the fairer sex, but as far as trauma goes, and their ability and tenacity to survive, women may even have a better evolution than men," said study researcher Dr. Adil H. Haider, an assistant professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.​

 

Females are more competitive with each other than males ever thought about being. Men fight, women annihilate. Wars are fought to keep the females in territory in which to raise their young. Men kill each other like roosters trying to provide nests for their hens.

 

I just shake my head and marvel when TV programs like "Sister Wives" try to protray the view that polygamy is fine. There is nothing fine about two or more women sharing one man. No matter how much they try to put on a face and show that its OK. Women are not built that way. We are nurturers. We birth life. We love with everything. Its just messes a woman brain up when she thinks or feels she is not Numero Uno in her mans life. And this is exactly what happens within a polygamous setting. There will always emerge a most loved and least loved one. In Sister Wives, it is very clear Kody really loves one wife above the others. And also very clear that one wife is so unhappy about this. So it can never be right.

 

Well, caring to two women at the same time has its own downsides. Good luck to anyone who thinks he can handle the emotional stress.

 

WOW! I actually have been enjoying reading this thread. I like the perspectives and all have valid points!

I could see SHTF situations that can result in males or females having a larger percentage left alive. Adapting to the situation. Tolerance will prevale if humans are to survive. The roles will change as needed.

@Maria_C If the 3 people involved all were aware and realized the situation. Say 2 of one sex and 4 of the other. If they are intellectual at all. The realization that either some of them will never have children. That they may all be needed for the survival of the group. Givin a little time. They will likely all mellow.

But I place a big IF in there. All here seem to be intellectual. Being so we would likely reason the situation out. Then mellow for the survival of all. I do know many people who could never do that. NEVER! They would die holding to their belief structure.

 

In normal everyday life I am against polygamy and everything it stands for. I'm not into sharing my man, my kids, my kitchen, my bed or anything like that with a bunch of other women. In a situation where our world has been turned upside down and all I'm worried about is survival, then yes, I would consider it. There would be no love involved, just survival. I imagine we will all be doing things we never considered before, we'll do whatever it takes to survive.

 

I have a 4yo (alomst 5) daughter. She is the sweetiest girl. If someone saved her from a rape or a dog attack or a kidnapping or any number of terrible things. I think I would love that person. Not as a husband or wife but clearly I would have a strong bond of some type. I mean like a family member.

This hypothetical situation is interesting. I don't think I could share my wife even if the shtf. Seriously, I mean in the physical terms. But if shtf I will not be reproducing anyways. I been fixed. So if it comes to that.

This is just one part of survival of the human race. If/when it happens. The subjects will have already been approached. The survivalists and preppers will lead as needed if only by speaking about subjects that we recognize now as potential issues and possible out comes. Here on this forum. The future of the human race is being worked out post shtf!

 

Polygamy can pretty much only exist within an ideology or culture that places the male in a dominant role and all females are subordinate. In my life I have neither followed such an ideology, or been part of those cultures. The culture in which I grew up may have prescribed gender roles for men and women, but never would have disrespected the woman by entertaining the idea that men could have multiple wives. The women I have known would not have stood for it.

 

Your assuming that its the male who has several partners. What if the role is 1 female to 20 males? This would be assuming that either male of female had a large die off that resulted in an imbalance between the sexes. 10 men for every 1 woman or 10 women for every one man. Could be either way.

 

I wonder why when a man is put at a dominant role people say the women are disrespected.

 

Kind of a crazy idea isn't it.

 

I have no idea if polygamy would become normal, in the sense of relationships that have multiple partners all happily married. Humans are all competitive, men AND women. Albeit often in different ways. I have no doubt that whatever the imbalance in available mates, male to female, there will be strong competition for the best partner.
I am happy to report I couldn't handle more than one woman.
My wife is a firecracker. Love her till death, but couldn't handle 2 of her. LMAO

 

I got fixed so unless the ratio was hundreds or thousands to 1 and society asked me to reverse the surgery for the good of all mankind. It won't happen with me. If something happened and both kids and myself were gone. I don't think my wife would care to conceive again for any reason.

Its just a hypothetical as are many of the possibilities. This really would not be a issue if the male population were decreased. The seriousness of the question comes into play when the female population is decreased. One male can be placed into a role of spreading his seed generally. But if only one female to 100 males then in a generation a large die off will occur. Other very important issues rear their head.

My wife had 2 c sections. She would not give birth easily without help. With good medical care she was all right. If the ration was 1 to 100. No matter what. A large die off would occur. Take the average number of offspring to the original population. for the fun of round numbers. 4 to 100? so the population would drop to 1/25th of the original size? Did I do the math correctly.

Mankind would still survive but the world would need to begin populating to reach the magical 500 million number on the Georgia guide stones.

 

Polyandry and polygamy may in various situations be a required survival way of life. In the past or in the future in a world that isn't overpopulated either or both or any number of other combinations can be the best answer to high death rates. When wars killed a lot of the men the women needed providers and mates in order for them to survive and help replace the lost tribal members. On the other hand if something throws the balance off so there are a lot more men than women polyandry may be necessary to hold the tribe together. This is far more common than people realize. Another reason for multiple wives in polygamy is that kids need to be provided for and if there is a shortage of providers then those who can provide for more may easily find that more than one woman will accept polygamy rather then have her children suffer.

Another form of marriage is a line marriage where you have several men and several women join together as one family where the children are held in common. In a place where the death rates were exceptionally high this sort of arraignment was the best to insure that the children were cared for and survived. The entire concept of marriage was intended as a way to insure the survival of the children. It bound the male to the female and theoretically insured that he would hang around and help in the raising of the kids.

The entire religious side of it is mostly useless and just self-serving for those in power. If a man and woman want to be together that commitment is in no way strengthened by a ritual. Conversely in the past a lot of suffering came from people that were stuck together than didn't fit well at all.

I personally am ok with any grouping that provides for the kids and is good and provides both physical and emotional support for all involved. LOL, I have been very happily married now for going on 43 years. I don't believe than my wife is as open minded.

 

Let's face it, if many more women than men survived some apocalyptic event, the women would form groups resembling families. A man or men would NOT be the core / lead of such a group of women. Men would either be loners or form buddy teams, usually only two guys who, for some specific reason, formed a lasting friendship -- for instance, they were in combat together, they went to school together, they are biologic brothers, they have some sort of symbiosis (one is great at fixing things, jerry-rigging, the other knows the outdoors and is great with a map & compass).

A dominant / BIG male lion will stick to himself and a group of lionesses will seek-out one of these fellows. However, two young male lions will pair-up to knock King Leo off his throne so as to gain his territory and the females who have sought that territory to breed.

Some polygamy would exist post-SHTF, I just don't see it as being the primary marriage form. Look around the world. In Viking culture and in Polynesia, women were the land owners. This was because they bore the children and needed a "nest" in which to raise them. Men do not nest, they seek shelter -- which is to say a semi-permanent area to regroup or as a good place to hunt (hunting grounds they'll fight for). In Africa, many tribes see men living apart from the core village. Universally, a man or a group of men will eventually get around to finding a "territory" that he/they call their "turf" / the hunting grounds I was talking about. One male who is alone better be one bad-boy, because defending such will get you killed. In looking for a place to nest, women will desire such territories -- the male is a throw-in, something with which to breed, something that will help protect the turf/nest.

Here is a big caveat: The degree to which a male will tolerate cubs/children will determine the degree to which he is accepted by the females. Children are by far more important to their mothers than any male. A female who is more attached to a male than her children has psychological problems. Animals have both physical and psychological diseases. Humans have both physical and psychological problems. The Lord God-Almighty knows that I have seen outrageous, mind-numbing, sickening, psychological anomalies -- and I bet the reader has also. Just because some behavior is observed in beasts and humans DOES NOT make it normal.

Am I a socio-biologist? Yes. Do I think that there is more to human nature? Yes, however this is usually only manifested after a human somehow transcends their biologic under-pinnings. The latter was best articulated by Abraham Maslow. Look him up, he had some great observations concerning human nature, to include really positive things to say. Unlike animals, some humans can rise above the biologic, especially in our better moments. What a shame it is that most people so easily fall back into their baser nature, or never even leave it. Welcome to Earth.

 

Polygamy has always existed to some extent in most every group of peoples that I have read about. It is only nonexistent when it is heavily constrained by religious groups that are in power and even then if you look close you can find it. Women need men in order for them to survive during their pregnancies and while they care for a flock of kids. This need is even more pronounced in times when people are at war a lot and the men are either away or not coming back.

Also the wealthy and powerful even in cultures that normally discourage it find ways to make it ok for them to do as they please. The Bible is full of these stories. Some of this just has to do with the nature of the beast. Men are not really as suited to monogamy as women and will usually find a way to fulfill their piggy desires if left to their own devices.

During times of war the winners often impregnate as many of the conquered women as possible and then these extra unattached women become number two wives in what is often a sort of slavery to the number one wife. Without laws people generally end up in a generally more or less monogamous set up. I can't IMAGINE what it would be like to have more than ONE woman telling me what to do all the time!!!!

 

It's all gonna be good ladies, there's enough of me to share

 

Blah! I really dislike sharing. Yes, polygamy has been around and still exists but would I want to sign up as wife #6 for the sake of survival? I would say yes only if little children were involved, otherwise no. Since I can take care of myself and my children then I do not think I would be a good candidate for entering into a relationship like this.

 

In conflicts women has been used as trade items and slaves by the most civilized nations soldier throughout history. By the defenders of democracy in Vietnam and propably even later conflicts (the "winners" write history) and in the tribe-wars of Europe in the 600's.
The value of a woman goes up the less there are of them and the higher the value the higher is the propability that someone will enforce profit from them. It's bitter and sad and it has angered me throughout my life but it is true.

 

Amen

 

OK, so men sleep much more deeply than women. Thunder, lightning, mortar barrage, ding-dong of doom and many a man will simply go on snoring. One peep from a baby and a woman is wide awake.

Women have learned to use these sharp things we refer to as "knives". There exists no scarcity of knives on our planet.

Let's say that you say what you just said to your harem of women. Brother, where are you going to sleep?!

Just sayin'.

 

I don't give a bloody you know what about the rubbish they teach for education today in schools and colleges....genetics or sociology ...or male/female statistics or other nonsense.

For a man who can think outside the devout and zealous religion of sports and or the "Kardashians"....the most valuable commodity a woman can bring to him...degree/degrees or not ...is Peace....not Piece."

This is the one understanding missing from almost all of public education and at any level today and rampant, rabid, runaway sexuality of all kinds is substituted as the new normal. This substitution is a type of ignorant Bravo Sierra.

I am not against sexuality per se...but I am against stupid.

In like manner..I am not against alcohol...but I am against stupid.

A sense of Peace....and the stability extending from Peace is the most valuable commodity a woman can bring to a man who knows.

What most women know today is a version of Male expendability and disposability ...described today and covered up by rampant rabid...consumerism.

The sad truth is that the males today are no more intelligent and also describe and define themselves by what they consume.....and not by what they know. Sad but true.

So many males I know are so busy trying to be a male and run touchdowns of one kind or another and making themselves expendable and disposable for the next goal line established by women and children....or the advertising media.

These males remind me of a buck ..trying to keep the females together....working himself to death and an early grave in so doing.

This is not a definition of a patriarchal society....but a matriarchal society in economically affluent societies/economies.

It does not take a college education to figure this out for what it is.


With multiple women under one roof.....what is the chance of a male ever getting Peace???



Two things dating older women taught me....about the species and I am grateful to these older women for teaching me though I know now this was never intended.

1. Women are just as competitive as men and just because women believe in different things ....or values..does not mean she is not competitive or competitively aware of how to get them.

2. Just because a woman does not hunt and gather as does a male does not mean that she is not hunting and gathering.


and subset of this..

Many males are so dumb ...they think they are the hunter gather!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!!

Education levels or degrees change none of this.


One of the most educational experiences I've had was to escort an older woman I was seeing to her company Christmas Party years ago.

Being the social butterfly I am...I took a break from the noise of the ball room the company had rented.

Sitting in a chair in the lobby I observed a group of company women just outside the ball room.
Watching them I began to realize that they were not watching the males coming in ..but the other women.

They all quickly scanned the other women ...with a razor glance..a quick scan. There was a noticeable nod of approval or shake of the head....judgments had been made.

After several people and couples had arrived ...it came to me that I should have brought a video camera. This would make for an excellent psychological study...in female competitiveness.

I realized I was watching something very wild and feral...like a barnyard pecking order...the nod of approval or shake of the head.

Two of these women I knew had degrees from colleges. It made no difference...they were no different in their reactions than the non college women.

This was a special enchanted moment. The ability to see "Wildlife in it's natural Habitat." An unguarded moment in female behavior/psyche.
I mean to tell you ..it was a very quick, feral, wild, judgmental, even uncivilized look in these women's eyes. You had to be very quick to catch it.....it took place so rapidly as new guests arrived.

I have never forgotten this moment for the very immediate wild and judgmental look in these women's eyes...even the ones who had college degrees.

It taught me something very important about women..something I have never forgotten to this day.


Nonetheless...this knowledge and experience changes nothing. Peace is still the most valuable commodity a woman can bring to a man who knows...it's true and intrinsic value.

Women and men who only know Piece..have nothing going for them when the biology runs out and they have no other skills or knowledge's in life. For these people tend to be "High Maintenance."

Now think about that and carefully in a polygamy setting....SHTF or TEOTWAWKI.

My .02,

Watcherchris.

 

This topic is a little like religion and politics. People have a lot of strong feelings about this sort of thing and it makes it hard to talk about in a non-emotional manner. I don't mean that they argue or get angry necessarily rather it is hard for a lot of people to separate their "feelings" from their thoughts on things like this. The entire thing is massively NOT politically correct and any more people will believe almost anything rather than face unacceptable facts.

Men look at it through a testosterone fog and modern women look at it as disrespectful and turning women into things. For men, being the pigs that we are, our first thought has to do with sex. Women are a lot more possessive and territorial than men. All of this has roots in our primitive pasts.

In a world without birth control there are a lot of realities that anyone younger than me has never thought of or heard of. I came along as in hit maturity after the "pill" had been invented. Women didn't do a lot of recreational sex until they were married because most men back then didn't marry the kind of woman that had a passel of bastard kids in tow. Women NEED men because they can't be fully functional as a hunter gatherer when they are big preggers and can't leave their little ones alone to take care of all the things they have to do to provide for those kids. In the past making smart choices when it came to men was a big survival trait for women.

There have always been a lot of different "arrangements" made in the relationships between men and women. What works in one situation doesn't work well at all in a totally different situation. Honestly in America, right now, monogamy isn't working worth a damn. Everybody works and NOBODY is raising the kids. Also with divorces being so easy and common WAY too many kids are living in dirt poor one parent homes.

In the past things were nothing like what people nowadays think it was like. Before birth control monogamy was often by necessity not strictly speaking one man and one woman. Unless you wanted to kill your wife a lot of times men had other women that they kept so their wives didn't have to have a baby every 2 or 3 years. This wasn't talked about but it was very common among the more well to do. The poor made use of the professional ladies that every town had back then.

You WIFE was the mother of your heirs and the maker of your home. This position was not in any way threatened by a second woman or concubine. Often if a woman couldn't have children she would take in the children of these other women and thereby provide her husband with legitimate heirs. The story of Abraham in the Bible and exactly who was his first born son is one of these type stories.

Most native American tribes had women, especially widows, taking positions as second or even third wives if a hunter could support them. If the poor widowed woman was old or childless she would be thrown out of the tribe unless she had some special abilities. The fact is that in most primitive societies men get killed a lot and without this system their children wouldn't survive. Most native Americans took in children regardless of their origins.

In the times before the invention of the gun women just couldn't compete on an equal basis with men in a fight and as such were subject to being preyed upon if they didn't have male protectors. Powerful men have always had as many wives as they wanted with the only limiting factor being that they support them and their children. Marriage in most societies in the past was more of a business deal than an affair of the heart.

I'm afraid that survival is going to be hard on a lot of peoples ideas of what is right and proper and like a lot of other things those that won't adapt will die. of the sexes has been mostly forgotten but when you take away the modern medical things it won't be long before people get a really harsh awakening.

On another topic we talked about trade goods. I've seriously considered condoms in that line!!! Raw childbirth outside of a hospital without any medical assistance just isn't something that modern people are ready for. Polygamy was just one of the adaptations that we now see as only something that a male would have interest in but women in the past found it as a better life than just being a baby factory.

 

TexDanm,

For those in the know...this is often called "Dissonance...or sometimes called Cognitive Dissonance."
It is a way of maneuvering people into uncomfortable positions or issues to get them to commit to a position or doctrine/dogma which is controlled by others. People will often today rather emote than think..or think for themselves. This makes them easily maneuvered by dissonance techniques...or techniques of discomfort.

Advertising can often be a type of dissonance or discomfort by making people feel inadequate emotionally if you do not buy a certain product. A car....make up, clothes, houses, and the list can go on forever.

The key is ...how man people are even aware of this as a technique..or if you prefer ..a devout and zealous religion used to "herd " people.

I do not necessarily agree here. Women often look at it through an estrogen fog, Many of them through the prism of how to get a male to run the touchdown for them and often for their children....without him being aware this is going on ...or that it is not even his idea...running the touchdown. But he is to think it is his idea......who is the pig here????
This is where much of male expendability and disposability enters the formula in behaviors.
At times to me...there is nothing dumber than a male trying to run a touchdown.

Women are just as sexual as men and at times even more so. Just because she does not react to the same stimulus as a male does not mean she is not as sexual or even more so.
I do not agree that women are a lot more territorial than men. They just are motivated in their territoriality in different ways and for different reasons than a male.
It does have roots in our primitive past....but the very nature of how and why it is hidden from people by sex ...is very interesting in how this governs behaviors.


Give you an example of female competitiveness and thinking/reaction in this completive framework.
This same older woman I was dating back then...she asked me to take her to a series of yard sales as I had a truck back then and she did not.

I realized after a couple of yard sales that she could see items from a moving truck while shouting stop and having the door open and out and running before I came to a complete stop.

I can't do that ...can you do that?? I can't do that!!
Again I was a bit stunned when it came to me what I was observing. Almost feral in it's urgency.

What you are describing is basic survival techniques among ancient people...even Native American peoples.


Economic Affluence has skewed much of this instinct today....and not for the better concerning survival...particularly for the family unit.

In a certain sense it has made survival odds in a SHTF or TEOTWAWKI....very slim.
For it is heavily reinforcing the devout and zealous religious dogma of Male Expendability and Disposability.

You can see this clearly being attempted through our college campuses today...and among young people who know little history and only how to define themselves by their sexuality and their consumption rates.


Much of education today has not made us better people ..only better consumers.


Lonewolf,

This is what happens in an Idle social structure were the most influential thing in peoples lives is a television and movie education. It is going on here in America too and clearly seen in television and movie advertisements. Monkey see, monkey do. No evolution going on here folks.
Such a thing can only happen in economically developed social structures....economies....where life affords hours in front of a television and movies.
Second hand thoughts, emotions, and experiences. Few even recognize this is going on.

You can tell this if you think of the number of people you know whom when asked about a deep thought ...quote a movie or television program they have watched.
The frightening thing is that these people are voters.
They can be made to vote someone else's thoughts, someone else's ideas, someone else's emotions...like puppets on a string.
Want to know where AI/Artificial Intelligence is going....there you have it. Robots running a program. Some of us are already there....Robots/Artificial Intelligence and know it not.

It is going on among the males too in a clear attempt to feminize them as well. Get the males to define themselves by what they consume .....not by what they know or can do ...or how well they can think...and then do. The show ...not the substance. Monkey see, monkey do.


My .02,

Watcherchris

Not an Ishamelite.

 

TexDanm and others.,

I got to re reading your post above and rethought something you posted...

Here...

There is more to this story and passage in the Word than most are even aware...there is some girl stuff/competitiveness going on here...between the women over inheritance.

It is still a business deal today. Just check out any divorce and or separation agreement.
Some would say it boils down to an organized system wherein a woman can get all the benefits of a husband without the husband. Nothing is protected for the male...he is for all purposes expendable and disposable.

If it is all about sex/testosterone for the male ..women should be taking out and paying for insurance policies to protect a man with a sexual security blanket should she die first.
Do you see this happening or encouraged in female social beliefs??? Particularly by feminist women of "Equality??"

Patriarical society???


Agree....if SHTF or TEOTWAWKI takes place..people will indeed get a harsh awakening.


Thanks,
Watcherchris

 

Don''t worry about it Lonewolf. If you have warned them it is sufficient. You can do no more.

Here we sometimes have an olde saying... "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink."

The Bible has several such comments through out it about giving warnings...if you give the warning and they heed not it is on their head...and if you do not give the warning ...etc etc.

That is a paraphrase...as I do not have my electronic Bible out right now but recall the basic pattern of the teaching.

You are not responsible if you give the warning. You've done what you can do.


Let me give you an example of giving a warning and a teaching to a young man out of the Marines who was dating a young lady and she was so obviously conspiring to raise the bar on him to get him to jump to her next needed plateau...or need...if you like Abraham Maslow....etc

Now I was helping this young man with a problem he was having with his car as I have a large garage in which extensive work can be done under shelter.

What I taught him was something the Marines never covered...nor does public education....while conversing and helping him to work on his car.

His woman of whom he was dating would do something which verily irritated him because he could come to no defense for it...he had no words and often remained silent when she tried this female strategy.

She would come up with this standard operating procedure of voicing "You only come to me for one thing!!!"


Well...out there in my garage I taught him how to handle it and quickly.

It was a couple of months before he got back to me with the results....and it was very interesting what happened.

I taught him to tell her in no uncertain terms....that if all he wanted was to serve his "Oil Shortage" by coming to the pump....he knew many woman who's only skill in life was to take off their clothes.

Not only that ...a couple of these women would gladly come around him in taking off their clothes to demonstrate that she was not sitting on the only one in town.....if it was only about "Striking Oil."


But you must be very certain of yourself when you do this because a woman can certainly out talk a man in many arenas and most certainly out emote a man. This is a standard operating technique of many women out here to maneuver a male blindsided by not thinking and an "Oil Shortage" mentality.

He told me she clammed up and never tried that tack or path again. She had never heard such from a man and was obviously unprepared for the results. Female socialization training had not prepared her for that. She was not accustomed to a man who understood about female competition verses a male "Oil Shortage " mentality.

Now it just so happened that he did indeed know several such women from times past. So he understood immediately of what I was describing..but had never thought it through far enough to connect the dots to her behavior.

But I am proud of him for yanking her upright in such a manner and have since taught several other young men to stand their ground and thus raise the bar on a woman...instead of vice versa.

For a woman yanking a mans chain thusly is not a formula for Peace.


In TEOTWAWKI or SHTF you are going to see a lot of these manipulators who are waiting for someone else to take the risks and set up the buffet line and they just show up to feed..then leave messes for someone else to clean up. But they have no real life skills or knowledge outside of their Maintenance Costs....ie...High Maintenance.

If you warn them as did this young man...you are not responsible for them. What is more important as a male...is that you have lead....not been lead by them.

Well enough of that but it was interesting what happened with that young man...he had learned to think and act outside the box. He lead her...not let her lead him.

Thanks,
Watcherchris.