Whilst I certainly would never consider being polygamous, I have often wondered at the fact that it is something that is prevelent in the animal kingdom.
Recent threads have indicated that we human animals consider ourselves so much better than the rest of the animal kingdom, but some of that could well be put down to wishful thinking.
Not being a zoologist, I don't know the statistical ratio of monogonous/poligamous animal, birds, reptiles and insects.
I do know that a male lion who has defeated an older alpha male will mate with the alpha female - but will kill any young that are produced from a union with the previous leader. That is, supposedly, because he wants to be 'master of his own territory' - and there must be no mercy to any part of the pride that does not recognize him as the master.
Monogamy and polygamy depend upon temperament. A monogamous temperament could never be otherwise than monogamous. And there are temperaments that will always have a tendency towards polygamy; no matter how happily placed in life, or how carefully guarded; these naturally seek variety of experience in sex.
In the lower animal creation, the polygamous temperament is seen to predominate. There one male is capable of procreation through a number of females, and in this respect man is no exception.
To permit polygamy is simply to recognize a natural human tendency with frankness. But to permit polygamy does not in any way mean the same as to enjoin polygamy. Muhammad, for instance, advised many temperaments that they should marry one woman only.
To permit polygamy does not mean, either, an interference with the ideal of monogamy, and it certainly need not tend to bring about a decrease in the number of perfectly mated monogamous lives. Among Muslims really monogamous lives are no rarer than among other communities that wish to maintain an appearance of conforming to a more artificial standard of morals. It would not, for instance, be difficult to find Muslim families where the men have been definitely monogamous over a period of four or five generations.
Since the male represents strength and power, his life is not only hazarded in the wars and battles that have existed in all ages, but is also risked in the adventurous sports and dangerous occupations of peace. There is consequently in all communities a greater loss of life in the male than in the female population. Under this disparity of numbers it is a question how far it is a virtue to enforce a system that robs a large number of women of their natural rights, without leaving them any choice in the matter. If it be a virtue it none the less means a loss of members of the community. Actually the average individual does not keep with honesty to such a standard, and so loses the opportunity of procreation without restraining passion. Thus morals are undermined, and prostitution encouraged.
In Afghanistan, which is considered backward in progress by the East, but where polygamy, being a natural tendency, is recognized both by law and religion, there are few instances of sexual crime; prostitution is practically unknown and there are no foundling children.
There are again cases when polygamy from every reasonable point of view seems a necessity. In a marriage, for instance, where the wife is insane, or diseased, or childless. And besides these physical reasons there are intellectual reasons. Looking into life one sees men unlike in all things. Perhaps one man is equal in his physical strength to ten average men; another is intellectually a giant among his fellows. In Sanskrit Mana means mind. And the real man is mind. One mind may be equal to a thousand minds. One mind may be capable of managing innumerable activities, and of supporting innumerable interests.
What are your thoughts ?
Recent threads have indicated that we human animals consider ourselves so much better than the rest of the animal kingdom, but some of that could well be put down to wishful thinking.
Not being a zoologist, I don't know the statistical ratio of monogonous/poligamous animal, birds, reptiles and insects.
I do know that a male lion who has defeated an older alpha male will mate with the alpha female - but will kill any young that are produced from a union with the previous leader. That is, supposedly, because he wants to be 'master of his own territory' - and there must be no mercy to any part of the pride that does not recognize him as the master.
Monogamy and polygamy depend upon temperament. A monogamous temperament could never be otherwise than monogamous. And there are temperaments that will always have a tendency towards polygamy; no matter how happily placed in life, or how carefully guarded; these naturally seek variety of experience in sex.
In the lower animal creation, the polygamous temperament is seen to predominate. There one male is capable of procreation through a number of females, and in this respect man is no exception.
To permit polygamy is simply to recognize a natural human tendency with frankness. But to permit polygamy does not in any way mean the same as to enjoin polygamy. Muhammad, for instance, advised many temperaments that they should marry one woman only.
To permit polygamy does not mean, either, an interference with the ideal of monogamy, and it certainly need not tend to bring about a decrease in the number of perfectly mated monogamous lives. Among Muslims really monogamous lives are no rarer than among other communities that wish to maintain an appearance of conforming to a more artificial standard of morals. It would not, for instance, be difficult to find Muslim families where the men have been definitely monogamous over a period of four or five generations.
Since the male represents strength and power, his life is not only hazarded in the wars and battles that have existed in all ages, but is also risked in the adventurous sports and dangerous occupations of peace. There is consequently in all communities a greater loss of life in the male than in the female population. Under this disparity of numbers it is a question how far it is a virtue to enforce a system that robs a large number of women of their natural rights, without leaving them any choice in the matter. If it be a virtue it none the less means a loss of members of the community. Actually the average individual does not keep with honesty to such a standard, and so loses the opportunity of procreation without restraining passion. Thus morals are undermined, and prostitution encouraged.
In Afghanistan, which is considered backward in progress by the East, but where polygamy, being a natural tendency, is recognized both by law and religion, there are few instances of sexual crime; prostitution is practically unknown and there are no foundling children.
There are again cases when polygamy from every reasonable point of view seems a necessity. In a marriage, for instance, where the wife is insane, or diseased, or childless. And besides these physical reasons there are intellectual reasons. Looking into life one sees men unlike in all things. Perhaps one man is equal in his physical strength to ten average men; another is intellectually a giant among his fellows. In Sanskrit Mana means mind. And the real man is mind. One mind may be equal to a thousand minds. One mind may be capable of managing innumerable activities, and of supporting innumerable interests.
What are your thoughts ?
