Once again Trad shows what a fool he is.

The reason is very simple.
The ratio of boys born to girls is almost one to one.
Girls have a slightly greater number because boys are greater risk
takers and are more likely to die young.

If Trad had his way there would be very large numbers of men unable
to find life partners. This would be a prescription for disaster.
Has any society with polygamy ever reached a high standard of living
and human rights on their own efforts.
Not the middle east.

Peter Hume- <women would be subject to unequal laws imposed on the basis that they are incapable of making decisions for themselves.>

So you think women would choose to be in polygamous marriages if given a choice not imposed by religion or law and the lack of access to contraception. The reason lack of contraception is a deciding factor is because it spreads the burden of child rearing amongst the other wives.

Now back to the Western World where women DO have access to contraception. Women had a huge burden to carry (in having to bear multiple children) before 1960-1970 when the contraceptive pill was allowed so affairs and casual sex had a huge risk factor for them; not to mention looking after all those children never gave them the time.

The point I am making is; now with the freedom from constant childbearing and excellent contraception and their own money women would much rather have affairs with more men than be stuck in a polygamous relationship.

I think marriage is an archaic law really set up for the protection of children. I agree with you Peter that we need to rethink it in the child free society we have today.

Legal Eagle
I like legal eagles idea of a legal agreement between couples that has a legal date set down in it to stay married until the children go to school and then after that there should be binding legal agreement as to equal responsibility, that is equal child rearing and financial obligations in regards to the childrens welfare.

Men should not be allowed to father children and not be there to support the mother in the childs early baby years. That's when a lot of them don't do their bit so the first five years in any contract should be binding, where children are involved.

Anitseptic:- It appears that most women find the prospect of an already married man very attractive too.

This would seem to be a huge vote against single men by women in todays society. Or is it because rather than polygamy women are more interested in having affairs with different men too and think that married men are safer, kinder and less likely to cause problems if she decides to move on to another man. They are also less likely to boast about her to their friends as discretion is something they need in the relationship too.

Also if she doesn't want children there will be no pressure from a married man who already has children.

Sharkfin:

I'm appalled by the selfish and short-sighted nihilism in your comment:
"I think marriage is an archaic law really set up for the protection of children. I agree with you Peter that we need to rethink it in the child free society we have today."

Without children, society is doomed. People become more and more self-obsessed, atomistic, and ultimately, as they age - unloved and uncared for.

Many western societies are committing demographic suicide. Russia's population is shrinking by 750,000 a year. China's one child policy has produced a generation of little emperors - far more selfish than previous generations. Japan is slowly imploding. In much of the West, and in Russia too, only Muslims are producing large numbers of children.

How will Western pluralism, tolerance and liberalism survive in the face of this demographic timebomb?

Glorfindel, from a personal point of view, I think the chance to have children has been a gift, particularly as I have seen friends have difficulties. But I know others who find the idea of kids abhorrent. And I know people who have been "anti" kids, but have had a spectacular about-turn when their friends started having kids! It takes all sorts.

Marriage needs to be set up to cater for both the possibility of children or the possibility of no children. I see marriage as a joint venture, an acknowledgment that one would rather live with another person than alone, and that you are going to pool your resources. Whether it produces children or not does is immaterial. I would not say that infertile couples are any less married because they cannot have children, for example.

Just speaking historically, and in a certain context that is NOT aplicable today: Islam permitted polygamy as a way of making sure that the 'extra' women left over without husbands as a result of war would be able to live in relationships and would not be forced to beg, or to be burdens on ther families, or to have to esort to prostitution in order to have enough to eat.

This is obviously not the case today in most westerm societies, so one leg of the arguments in favour of polygamy falls away.

However there are a number of men (and women) who do not partner with someone of the other sex, so that in certain circumstances there can be more women (or men) available than potential marriage partners. Ie, there may be a 'market' for polygamy.

Last point that I would make here: nearly all recent research shows that men and women, after a period of marriage, have different sex drives. Bettina Arndt's 'Sex Diaries' shows this clearly. What other explanation can there be for there being many more female prostitutes than male? I would guess that many prostitutes' clients are married men who feel that they are not getting what they want at home (in spite of the fact that no-one ever died from not having sex). In some circumstances a couple may decide that to share female side of the sex in a marriage, whlst bringing in a live-in babysitter / housekeeper / female companion, may be advantageous.

This could be the basis of the 'sister / wife concept found in certain so-called Christian sects.

I don't think this is necessarily 'good', but in this post-modern world what is 'good' or 'bad'?