If you believe woman are lesser creatures then you will support polygamy. I agree Banjo.

We have to consider why cultures have Polygamy.

Cultures that have a long tradition of warfare tend to lose lots of men of working/marriagable age. Consequently there is an over abundance of females. Mostly the men are older. They have survived the wars & are left to look after the wives of the killed husbands. Their religion says they must look after widows but they cannot have casual sex. So their culture solves the problem by Polygamy. They have to marry them in order to take care of the widows. I believe that this is an honourable solution in those areas.

It would not work in a Western culture. Our women are too jealous & greedy to start with.

Further re polygyny --found this in “Psychology Today” Nov 2007:

“Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of ‘Making Sense of Suicide Missions’, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslims. Why?
The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether exclude many men from reproductive opportunities … polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates…. Across all societies, ploygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, ploygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous that Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa…they have very high levels of violence… but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promised of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam…appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of ploygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings.”

Lost sexual opportunities -produces- aggressive behaviour (?)
Must admit, I was a little dubious at first – but found conclusive proof here on OLO!

Now imagine if you were one of only two Billy Connollys ---but there was only one Pamela Anderson, and, you were the twin that missed out (cruel, cruel world!) --- it’d be enough to get anyone’s smalls in knot.

Hint: “Wingnut!” “Racist!” … (need I say more!

PS: Before CJ squawks, Pamela Anderson should read Pamela Stephenson!

I dunno Horus.

>>PS: Before CJ squawks, Pamela Anderson should read Pamela Stephenson!<<

It worked for me.

Probably for Billy Connolly too.

We were polygamous (and polyandrous) for most of human history. The question is not why some societies are polygamous. The real question is why so many societies became monogamous. There are all sorts of speculations. The reality is that there are probably multiple reasons.

Throughout most of history women probably had little choice. They were treated more or less as chattels.

Why might some women in Western societies prefer polygamy?

Perhaps it's because some women may prefer to share an alpha male than to have a more modest male to themselves. We see shades of this in sperm banks. Some single women prefer the sperm of what they believe to be an alpha male to living with an actual male of their acquaintance.

Jayb,

My guess is that the culture and religion legitimated an established pragmatic arrangement and not vice versa.

Banjo,

I've also been wondering whether polyandry will become established in China.