In return she undertook to look after him and provide sexual services on demand - hence the traditional view that there was no such thing as rape in marriage.

The traditional vow for the woman to "obey" also meant "come across whenever I want" - otherwise the deal would not have made sense from the point of view of the man, who by contributing so much was generally depriving himself of the material means to induce other women to favour him with their charms. And in order for the man to know that the child he was contributing to was his, he had to be able to control the woman’s sexuality, and to do that, he curtailed what had been her *economic* freedom.

The advantages of the new dispensation had its corresponding disadvantages. Women were worse off in that they became subjugated in the patriarchy. But men also were worse off because their opportunities for casual sex with many, or various women, were greatly curtailed.

Both men and women chafe under the harness of marriage, but the great beneficiaries were children. Whatever the disadvantages to sex, the advantages to reproduction were so great that the new order comprised a moral and economic revolution that quickly swept aside the old order.

Although this happened very late in pre-history, still it was just before the invention of writing and therefore before history. Modern-day feminists, taking paternity for granted, complained that women are subjugated under patriarchy, which is true, but concluded that the main beneficiaries are men, which is false.

After feminism, women enjoy not equality, but the double standard of having all the advantages of patriarchy – moral and legal obligation on men to contribute to the support of their biological children – without the disadvantages of pre-patriarchy – need to freelance sexual services with multiple men – and without the disadvantages of patriarchy – subjugation to patriarch and obligation to obey and provide sexual services on demand.

What about that?

Wow Peter H that is a very in depth analysis. It is interesting to note though, that poorer women were often 'allowed' to participate in the workforce even in those patriarchal times. Babies being looked after usually by one other woman who had a few to care for, or a family member like a grandparent if they were still alive. In Agrarian communites husbands and wives often took the children into the paddock while they worked for the landowner.

But what about love in all this? Ultimately these arrangements start from love or attraction of some sort, except in societies where marriages are pre-arranged by parents.

Love (in Western cultures) is what attracts and binds people together even if all those practical issues are catered for as you have outlined. The arrangements of any one family then become a decision and personal choice for both partners.

Dear We Are Unique,

Thanks for making me laugh!
Loved your post.

Dear Richie 10,

I have enough trouble with one husband.
I don't think I could deal with any more.

Dear Peter Hume,

Thank You for your in-depth analysis.
It's much appreciated.

Dear Pelly,

Ah yes, that old black magic has us in
a spin - Love! Sweet Love!
It's something we fall into, and can fall deeper
into still - so why does passion or caring
sometimes fade into utter indifference?

Philosophers, religious leaders, psychologists
have long tried to define love. Plato, preferred
the love of knowledge. To think about love is,
useful to consider the opposite. The opposite of
love could be indifference or apathy. When the
caring has gone, so has the love.

However, human beings have a huge capacity for
love in many forms, from the romantic passionate
love we might feel for a partner to the protective
love for a child or friend to a love of concepts,
such as freedom or knowledge, and things, such
as a beautiful painting or treasured object.

All of these enrich us.

People are enjoying better health and living longer than at any other time in history.

It means that people really can dream about growing extra-old together and it also means that monogamy lasts longer.

There is something wonderful about the long term experience of sharing one's vulnerabilities yet feeling safe and secure with another person and the interest never ends in sharing the changes one undergoes with the years. The old boy maturing is just great; I think he has become much more handsome and interesting with time. We have got all the variety we need just adapting to each other's changes.

I know that lots of people say that monogamy isn't for everyone and of course a consideration of other cultures and forms of social organization down through time bear that out. I can see a lot of common sense and benefits in polygamy and other types of relationship/family formation too - it's a shame that more people don't try real, long-term monogamy - they really don't know what they're missing.

As a retired anthropologist, let me just say that I'm enjoying this thread.

In particular, the recent imaginative posts from benk and Peter Hume tickled my fancy. Perhaps they could get together and write a novel along the lines of 'Clan of the Cave Bear'.

Peter Hume,

An interesting article. I wonder if there was not some advantage to the men in agreeing to share the women so at least every man had a woman. Otherwise I would imagine the men would have spent a lot of time fighting amongst themselves.

Ironically, maybe it is because of women’s liberation that polygamy is again becoming feasible in Western style cultures because with women working and contributing at least some funds to their children’s care a man can afford to father more children and also with the advent of the pill the children can be limited to reasonable numbers with each partner.

It reminds me of a mormon I saw on a documentary one night, who had umpteen wives and children and they were all funded by social security. That would not make Western taxpayers at all happy.