cont'd...

Dear Individual,

I like this quote from Albert Einstein:

"Strange is our situation here on Earth.
Each of us comes for a short visit, not
knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to
divine a purpose. From the standpoint of
daily life, however, there is one thing we
do know: that man is here for the sake of
other men (i.e. mankind) - above all for
those upon whose smiles and well-being our
own happiness depends."

Dear Yabby,

I've been waiting for you to post.
Thanks for finally doing it and for
the book reference. It sounds spot on.
I only wish that I'd read it prior to
starting this thread. However, I definitely
will read it and let you know what I think.

I suspect it'll be great!

Hi Foxy

Yes it is natural within our culture given our westernised country thinking and knowing one word 'finances'. Though, with more women in high profile well-paid careers and multi-culturalism, who knows if legislation will change under public pressure within the next 50 years!

If polygamy were legalised....Ooooh yes.....wouldnt I and others have fun, [extra support from one another]!

Can just see it now....an extra husband who can put out the garbage just once, come with me to do the grocery shopping a few times a year, cook just once, clean just once, attend to all of the emotional needs of my children and himself sometimes, assist with homework, say 'You are a great mother' occasionally, acknowledge all of my giving and loving attributes, pull me gently into line when I am wrong or hurtful to anyone, say "I love you" a few times in 20 years, give me hugs and kisses when feeling down, come bike riding with me, camping and fishing, be romantic once.

Gee...how would the father of my children cope with another man doing all of these things with me [and more]? Knowing this Aussie chauvanist it would not go down too well LOL.

Dear Foxy,
In todays society we believe science is the ultimate arbitrter of truth. Is DNA a science as it is used to obtain evidence
I heard a story last weekend that the gold found in the Egyptian tombs was mined at Gympie Qld and the workers were their slaves who were the ancestors of the Aust aboriginal. So I googled up "origon of the australian aboriginal" and dna evidence says That they came from North Africa not Asia as we were taught to believe. So lets suppose the bible is true and and Adam started it all in northern Africa . God gave Adam a help mate not two or three. When we chose to follow the lusts of the flesh troubles come. I have just finished a book called Escape by Carolyn Jessop about plural marriages and it is a real eye opener about where lusts of the flesh can lead. God is not a spoilt sport party pooper he is a loving father who wants the very best for his children but like any loving father he knows that you have to let the bird fly and if it comes back it is yours. We have free will and it is our choice whether we follow his word or the lust of the flesh which leads to the mess the human race is in at this present time. So my opinion is that if we choose to remain faithful to one wife forsaking all others we build a strong society not trouble.

Richie

The Barrineans/Negritos probably came from Africa. The first Aborigines came much later from New Guinea.

Those who say that marriage exploits women are failing to consider the position of women in a society in which everyone was ignorant of physical paternity. This was the most probable condition of our species from our nearest common ancestor with other species, about seven million years ago, down to when physical paternity was discovered in about the last ten thousand years.

For the vast majority of the time in which the general patterns of human sexual and reproductive behaviour evolved, people did not understand the connection between men, sex and babies. This is crucial.

In the absence of social paternity, men and women would still have sex, and women would still have babies. If a woman was to look after the baby she had borne, she would need help, especially in the first few years. She could look to other women, but they would tend to be in the same position. She could look to a man or men who as a class would have a surplus of 'disposable income' over and above his or their needs. But ex hypothesi he or they would not have any reason of paternity to contribute to her children.

Now what can a woman do to induce a man to be kind to her and give her stuff? Well we all know the answer to that, don't we?

In the ignorance of paternity and absence of patriarchy, the condition of the woman was much worse and more unequal, as she obtained her major supplementary subsistence from exchanging sexual favours with a man or men who had no commitment based on paternity. Her economic independence and her sexual independence were largely the same thing.

Once paternity became understood, it enabled the woman to exchange the insecurity of a ‘freelance’, as it were, for the security of an ‘employee’ with tenure. She could say to him “*You and only you* are the father of this child. I’ll do you a deal.” Instead of a fee for service type deal, she participated jointly in his income and equity for life; and also stood to inherit.