Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit
BrotherObscura

How come in polygamy its the man with many wives but not the woman with many husbands?

you never hear about a woman with 4 husbands. only a man with 8 wives

Report as

You may want to look this over:

The word you are looking for is "polyandrous."

The term "polyamorous" can refer to the nature of a relationship at some point in time or to a philosophy or relationship orientation (much like gender or sexual orientation).

Polyamory is a less specific term than polygamy, the practice or condition of having more than one spouse. The majority of polygamous cultures are traditionally polygynous, where one husband has multiple wives. Polyandrous societies, in which one wife has multiple husbands, are less common but do exist. As of July 2009, it was estimated that more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships existed in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

And then read this newspaper article:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=blc0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=CcwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2638,6668094&dq=polyandry+sri+lanka&hl=en

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
There were plenty of words invented by Feminists. I don't accept any of them.
Report as
Add a comment...

Polygamy is usually practiced because of someone's religion and the types of religions that practice it say that the man can have many wives. This is because woman are seen more like property than anything else by them... only one step above pets.

Helpful (1) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Because that is nature. Man can impregnate many women at once and want to do so, whatever baloney they say. Woman has to devote huge amount of time and energy to producing just one offspring. It's common sense.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
While part of your statement is true, the only man you have to speak for, as far as what they want, is yourself. That part of your statement says more about your motives than it does about nature.
Report as
Add a comment...

Polygamy glorifies the man as women are "nothing" in some religions. If you are interested in pursuing a relationship where the both male and female have multiple committed partners...polyamory.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Pete and Repeat were sitting on a fence. Pete fell off. Who was left? By the way, contrary to what you've been indoctrinated to believe, Polygamy is not Religiously exclusive, nor exclusively for those motives. But propaganda will go on.
Report as
Add a comment...

Because women have more common sense.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
BrotherObscura
if women had common sense as you say they wouldn't marry someone whos married. no offense just throwing your point back at you.
Report as
Add a comment...

Women need to wake up and see that they are not property. In this day and time of Aids you should be aware. If it is regarding religion if you are talking about Islam there is no compulsion in religion. We need to study the religion and its facts from its roots.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
BrotherObscura
''aids''?
Report as
Women need to wake up so that they can go to sleep. Especially under the guise of Feminism.
Report as
Add a comment...
drhelp

Actually when God created the man ,created him naturally for one wife ,but after the man desires started to push him to many ladies ,because for the man sex like urination ,but for the lady sex is a long story in special times ,this from the physical side ,But from the legal side , if the lady married many men her baby would be lost between who will be his father and this may create many social problems ,that a father could marry his daughter or a brother to marry his sister , but when one man marries many ladies ,there will be no confusion for the baby origin ,it will be one father and one mother ,no mistakes ,,
Also you have to know ,that by divorce the lady can marry many men also ,but because the man who is the responsible about his family so he can collect many ladies by marriage ,but ladies are free just can marry after divorce million of men without any responsibilities toward anyone ..so ladies are more lucky in this system than the men ..

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
BrotherObscura
old caveman tribes would actually let the women take many mates so that noone would know who the father was. thus, the whole tribe would support the child.

''it takes a village to raise a child''-old kingdom proverb(i think)
Report as
You need to fix your english bad.
Report as
BrotherObscura
little bit
Report as
The proverb is African. It was used politically by Hillary Diane Clinton, according to her Nanny State, Utopian Socialist Ideal. There was a report done at the Carnegie Corporation while Hillary Clinton was a board member titled All Our Children. If someone wanted to glimpse her ideas, that would be a good place to look. She believes the government would be better for raising children than parents. She took the model for this from the French. This Nanny State was the purpose of her book, It Takes A Village.
Report as
Add a comment...

One woman with many husbands is polyandry. The LDS who practiced polygyny (the particular form of polygamy practiced by 99% of the polygamous world) believe one man may be married to many women, based on revelations given to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It was outlawed (Reynolds vs United States, 1879) and in order to obtain statehood, Utah had to outlaw polygamy.
Polyandry is practiced by a very few Himalayan tribes. It's not common, whereas polygyny is fairly common.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Ted Olson was asked by Justice Sotomayor if gay marriage didn't open the door to polygamy. Ted Olson?s words to the Supreme Court suggest that the state somehow "forbids" same-sex marriage today just as it "forbids" polygamy. This is not true, as Adam MacLeod noted in Public Discourse. Under current law and Supreme Court precedent, no state has constitutional authority to punish anyone for entering into a same-sex relationship. No state in fact "prohibits" same-sex marriage. If any persons wish to enter into such a relationship and call it a marriage, they are perfectly free to do so.

The real issue, the real complaint in the case that Olson represents, is that the state simply refuses to bestow on same-sex unions the same recognition that it gives to heterosexual marriages. In stark contrast, the law in many American jurisdictions not only refuses to recognize polygamous marriages; it actively punishes them. Enter into a same-sex marriage and the government will simply ignore you. Enter into a polygamous marriage and the law permits the government to prosecute you for a crime.

Unlike other distinctions Ted Olson raised, this one is real, and it positively undermines his assurance that we can have same-sex marriage while still banning polygamy. Common sense makes it hard to see how this could be done. In Olson?s view, the state may not officially prefer heterosexual marriage by a policy so mild that it does nothing other than to leave same-sex couples alone while declining to formally recognize their unions. By what reasoning, then, could it have a right to prefer some definition of marriage by actually punishing those who choose to disregard it?

Moreover, in his summary of what the Supreme Court has ?said? about polygamy, Olson omitted to mention the single most famous case dealing with this question, Reynolds v. United States (1879). In that case the Court upheld the federal law forbidding polygamy in the territories of the United States, and declined to find that the free exercise clause immunizes those who practice it for religious reasons. It is very much settled law. Changing to allow gay marriage would mean changing settled law.
Report as
Add a comment...

I have three girlfriends, but I wouldn't want to marry them even if it were legal.
Women don't collect wives as a display of status.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (7)
Report as
Besides, there's no such thing as homosexual marriage anyway. Nobody has ever existed in the history of the world, because of homosexuality.
Report as
There is such a thing as homosexual marriage, it is now legal in plenty of places.
Report as
I can write anything on paper. That doesn't make it true.
Report as
Homosexuality is never a means of producing a child. Ever. Your paper doesn't change the fact. You will never convince me of your definition of marriage. I love life. All that I love and cherish in this life, I owe to the Union/Marriage of Man and Woman. You can never validate your homosexual relationship to me.
Report as
Luckily I don't have to. Your opinion really doesn't matter to me. History will pass you by.
Report as
I'm not concerned about anything passing me by. I am not going to accept your lie, no matter how many are telling it. I don't care about popularity contests by the way. Validation of the masses is not necessary to me. Homosexuals can call me their bigot if they choose, as it is stated in the agenda. The more people see and understand the manipulation, I think you have greatly underestimated them. When people look in their Dictionary and discover that anyone who finds homosexual activity repulsive or disgusting, anyone who does not like it, or want anything to do with it, are identified as homophobic, the more they will rebel against your dishonesty.
Report as
History will pass you by, just as it did that with those the were against people of a different class getting married, a different religion getting married, and different colour getting married. Religious bigotry was no justification for that either.
Report as
Add a comment...

That would be a ho I hear about them all the time.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

The practice of polyandry is common in Nepal actually.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Feminism is based upon a lie. The real reason for multiple wives in ancient cultures is that having lots of offspring was very important to them. If a man had multiple wives, everyone knew who the father was. If a woman had multiple husbands, who could know who the father is?

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
I see the mistake you are making here! Other cultures actually worked out how genetics works and how you can pass on your blood.

If a man had multiple wives, he just had more chance that some of his children were actually his. The only guaranteed way to know you are passing on your genes is through the female line (who cares who the father is?), although if brothers share a wife there are better odds with that too. Also, there is division of property to consider in marriage arrangements.

The Judeo-Christian model is not the only one, nor is it the best, especially when it comes to division of property.

...sure, feminism is based on a lot of lies, but they are probably correct on this matter (if that is what they are saying, who knows? Does anybody listen to them?)
Report as
No, I've made no mistake.
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches