Re: Polygamy in the society
and in addition to that, there are more male spontaneous abortions than females. They are conceived at an equal rate but male fetuses hv a higher percentage of s. abortions.
Re: Polygamy in the society
spontaneous abortions = miscarriage ?
Re: Polygamy in the society
I was wary of using technical terms and languages in this thread, but since you have used it, so I must clarify further to the lay readers.
Since females carry “xx” chromosomes so they have double copy of the genes. So if one copy of the gene is defective then there is another copy to take over the function of defective gene. So despite having defective gene, females don’t develop many genetic diseases attributed to “x” chromosome. The male having “xy” chromosome are not so lucky. They have just one set of genes and that’s why if that copy is defective then they have no choice but to suffer the disease for the rest of their lives.
For example, colour blinness is a rare or practically impossible disease for a female but it’s quite common in male. The gene responsible for this unfortunately, resides in “x” chromosome. Again Major Thalessemia (I don’t remember the disease name properly and so spelling may be wrong) is another practically impossible disease for a female child. The list is long and I cannot discuss this subject here. So these diseases do refer to “Sex chromosomes” but they are not immunity related diseases as suggested by Barbie… So probably she meant this and so she is right in telling that probability of survival of female infant is higher than male.
In the end, females can accomplish a task like “Rolling Their Tongues” which no man can do. Try this in your leisure time with your family and this will be a real fun. This is again attributed to a gene. So I must salute all my female friends for carrying such special attributes which I don’t have. YES FEMALES ARE FITTER THAN MALES AS FAR AS SURVIVAL IS CONCERNED.
Re: Polygamy in the society
It can't be because of a high sexual drive because:
The Quran prohibits "lust" as a reason for marriage. Rather, you are supposed to seek virtuous qualities in a spouse. This helps you to be a better person and raise good children with a good home environment.
Women have just as high of a sex drive. We just don't yap about it, because then we're referred to as "whores" and "sluts".
Re: Polygamy in the society
Where does it say that you cannot lust your wives? :halo:
Re: Polygamy in the society
[quote]
2. Women have just as high of a sex drive. We just don't yap about it, because then we're referred to as "whores" and "sluts".
[/quote]
But you gotta agree men get tuned up fast, though they can't do "multiple" like some women can but anyway, as they are more image / physical tuned unlike women which have to get "in the mood" (feelings) to start..
Re: Polygamy in the society
Okay, look kid. You need to read some of the sexual literature written out there by females who are unafraid and unintimidated.
Women DO get turned on. By just looking. Yes, at "stuff". I wont talk about it in detail, cuz guess what? I'll have certain GS idiots running in here calling me a GS slut. And no, we don't necessarily always need to have the feelings component.
You know what? I recommend that you watch a few episodes of "Sex in the City". You would be surprised at how ACCURATE that is, and how MOST women can relate to this show and in particular WHY.
Re: Polygamy in the society
Then tell me why porn is so geared towards men than women when the industry is about making money.. :D
Re: Polygamy in the society
Yeah and someone PLZ explain the whole money shot thing to me !! 
I mean supposedly the woman does all the work and the guy gets all the glory.. typical 
Re: Polygamy in the society
Polygamy was an existing cultural practice, and if anything it was regulated.
This talk of why it was "allowed" presumes that it is some kind of exception to a universal rule or something...which is utter bullsh*it...
There's nothing wrong with Polygamy...no reasons are necessary for it...unless of course you want to question marriage itself...
Vast majority of marriages are monogomous anyway...is there a double standard? Boo freaking hoo...get over it or go to hell (literally, of course...)...
Re: Polygamy in the society
i may be wrong but hindu were polygames too prior to engish colonistaion…they are just very keen on forgetting that part of their past due to woman rise in their country nowadays…
I have a rather shocking point of view for most of my fellow westerners feminist, I see polygamy as a very good opportunity for females!
let me detail:
-first clarifying the sex ratio: naturally 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, but more boys die during childhood than girls, so almost same amounts of men enter puberty
-hence females outnumbering males justifying polygamy is a myth…
-some think that prior to agriculture invention males were fewer than females due to high casualities in huntings…but obvioulsy this can not stand for early islamic times…
so why was polygamy a common practice at that time?
i think that in order to have a better survival rate, and prosperity, it is important in a family that the one who have money (ie, usually the men, as the women are busy nursing kids) is as well off as possible, so I think that polygamy allowed rich men to get more wives, while it prevented poor men to have a descendance! As wealth is often a consequence of skills, intelligence…according the evoution theory which allow the survivalof the fittest, polygamy was more evolutionative than monogamy which allow basically anyone to procreate!
and also it gave the opportunity to most women to get “good” husband, as one could marry several:D
Re: Polygamy in the society
That’s because there are major cultural hurdles women need to overcome before the sight of a woman walking into a porn store doesn’t startle the public.
Women don’t use porn. They use novels. Go to a bookstore.
Re: Polygamy in the society
This theory of evolution works great in the old days when mankind was split up into sparsely spread tribes. We’re now approaching, if not already, our carrying capacity as a species on earth. The last thing we need is harems.
Re: Polygamy in the society
great post :k:
leave the apologetic drivel to someone else…
Re: Polygamy in the society
Interesting points.
Re: Polygamy in the society
it was not the topic…but I reckon that polygamy is a mean of boosting natality!
most accurately, it was, today a harem of women taking contraceptive pillls would not mean natality! in fact today sex/marriage/natality are so independant, than polygamy is not an advantage in terms of natality, but of cutural and financial sustainablity of a civilisation
Re: Polygamy in the society
hello freinds! i just want to reply to you. islam is permit four wifes but you see I only have the one wife because Allah know that in modern wife she wants so many things! who crazy can have four wifes and empty in pocket?haha! it is before because womans are simple haaha not all womans ofcourse but many are simple and no kharchaa like i want mobile phone i want more cloths. so in past man has four wifes and they are making him relax so it is better for all people but tauba tauba in today only one wifes is so much problem!
Re: Polygamy in the society
paris, are you telling me that in today's society, polygamy would make for a financially stable civilization?
Could you tell me how using examples? I'm at utter loss here in understanding how you made this deduction.
Re: Polygamy in the society
well, everyone know that most wealth on earth belong to men, so if most people are polygames, then it means that the poorer men won’t find wives…then no children will be born in the poorest families! i know this a very simple reasoning, many shortcuts…but that is the basic frame…
in fact it is a mean to level social inequalities…
social inequalities are the fuel of social unrest, and civilisation collapses…
Re: Polygamy in the society
Lets dissect this:
well, everyone know that most wealth on earth belong to men,
I don't think this is the NATURAL scenario. This is how mankind has actively decided to set up most of its societies. Now you have societies where women are allowed to work and given nearly the same opportunities as men, and you don't see most of the wealth belonging to men. In the USA, there are many wealthy women who don't need a man to support them. There are also many women who are surviving at the income they earn to the point they dont need to marry for money.
so if most people are polygames, then it means that the poorer men won't find wives...then no children will be born in the poorest families! i know this a very simple reasoning, many shortcuts...but that is the basic frame....
One assumption you are making is that women should be marrying for money. You need to revisit Islam if you think this is a valid sole reason for a woman to seek marriage. Marriage should not be pursued for money. Women should be seeking men to marry for their piety, not their money. I thought that was how it goes.
Secondly, if most people were polygamous, you'd have an impossible society!!! Worldwide, there is like 52 percent females and 48 percent males (my percentages might be 2 or 3 points off). But roughly, there are enough males to go around. Now, this does leave an excess of females, but not enough that every man can take 4 wives! If that were the case, we'd need a 1:4 men to women ratio, and the world does not have that! Maybe it did back in the stone ages where there were many selection pressures against humans, but not in this time and age where we're overpopulating the earth. There aren't enough resources to go around, and women is certainly one such resource. If men would start to take 4 wives, then you'd see a lot of men single and lonely. In fact, if men would start to take even 2 wives, you'd start seeing the number of single men go UP.
And when you have a lot of single men, sexually alone, you should know what happens. There is a great deal of AGGRESSION.
Now your logic of no children being born in poor families, well let me tell you, with so many unmarried men seeking sexual liasons, you'd have a lot of ******* children. On top of it, most children would be living in families where their mothers would be competing with other co-wives. This alone can cause a hazardous environment, since you should know that polygamy is NOT for everyone. Even Allah says in the Quran that most humans cannot treat two other humans equally, and then goes to emphasize to take one wife if a man can't treat his wives totally equally. And I always argue that it applies to emotional equality as well as material. Therefore, I argue you'd have a hell of a lot of emotionally unbalanced children. And pair that with money, and you get...BRATS.
in fact it is a mean to level social inequalities...
social inequalities are the fuel of social unrest, and civilisation collapses....
Social inqualities would increase because there would be the unmarried men who didn't make the economic cutoff for marriage (i.e. they didn't make enough money), and the men who did (men who made enough money). This would be a drastic divide and enough to get men competing against each other.
Knowing the effects of testosterone, this could lead to widescale war.
If rich men were meant to take on 4 wives, and not poor men, I would think God would have mentioned that and Rasullulah would have stated it clearly and shown it in his leadership. He would not have allowed poor men to marry and have dumped all the rich men with the women.
And knowing how Islam is all about equality especially when it comes to alleviating the social differences and political differences between the rich and the poor, it is no surprise that no such thing would happen.
I am quite surprised to be hearing of such claims from you, but I can only hope that I made some sense to you. It horrifies me to some extent that I am hearing other ladies speak in such a way about polygamy and about marriage and about money.