Number of wives?
-
The documents detail the hushed phone calls, but days after raiding the West Texas compound, officials still aren't sure where the girl is. She is not named among the children in initial custody petitions by the state.
Texas authorities have legal custody of 416 children, all of those believed to have lived at the ranch, Child Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner told reporters in San Angelo, about 40 miles from the compound in Eldorado.
Court documents said a number of teen girls at the 1,700-acre compound were pregnant, and all the children were removed on the grounds that they were in danger of "emotional, physical, and-or sexual abuse." Nearly 140 women left on their own.
A phone call from a girl that probably doesn't even exist, gives rights to authorities taking an entire communities children. Well at least they know who owns them.
-
I have only recently gotten divorced from a 6 year marriage. Reason for divorce. I could not provide my wife's financial needs.
Peace, wow financial needs, where do you live?
-
I remembered in India there is tribe i forget the name, they have a tradition the women are the head of family and bread winner they marry 4 men and the men stay at home and do the cooking cleaning etc.
Thats what monogyny brings Polyandry, the exploitation of women. That is what you monogynists are promoting here. Thats why you are smiling while you tell everyone about it.
So is that from God are that is their culture. hmm
It is not from God because it is not supported in the Quran. It is from people like you.
-
Are you sugesting poligamy for women hmm
;DVery funny, right? You are among those suggesting polygamy for women. Grinning wile you're at it.
No. I am not suggesting anything at all and I do not think any woman deserves being punished with extra husbands. In most cases one is punishment enough. And if in fact she has got that most precious and rare wonder of a good husband, most definitely she won't want to dilute it adding anything less than that, nor deprive other women of the same possibility if she happened to come across more than one of that rare species.
-
So you are saying that good husbands are rare but good wives are in abundance?
-
What if she does not come across more than one of "that rare species"? Should she share him with other women lawfully, or should she deprive them of him?
No, I am not a cruel person nor a women hater, therefore I would never advocate more than one husband.
That depends on what your views on polygyny are. If you advocate monogyny, then you also advocate polyandry. Because when polygyny is replaced by monogyny, it leads towards the exploitation of women who are unable to get married, it leads towards polyandry/prostitution.
You cannot advocate monogyny without advocating polyandry/prostitution.
-
-
That depends on what your views on polygyny are. If you advocate monogyny, then you also advocate polyandry. Because when polygyny is replaced by monogyny, it leads towards the exploitation of women who are unable to get married, it leads towards polyandry/prostitution.
You cannot advocate monogyny without advocating polyandry/prostitution.
Peace Fahad,
Well, that means something like 1+1=3...or more
As to the statement of your last sentence ... i do not believe that polygamy reduces prostitution... you know there are women that know how to gain a living without opening their legs for it AND a woman doing just that, as long as she's not being paid for it, is IMO not a prostitute.
And what about male prostitution ?lk
-
-
Yes, women should be free to choose. I wasn't arguing forced marriage or rape. They are one and the same.
-
Women have more men to choose from in a polygynous society where married men, who would otherwise be off-limits, are also available. Don't you think?
No, because if she has to share a man, she's only getting half a man, and the existing wife loses half a man. Neither of them have a real husband.
Liquiddharma,
-
What do you mean "no"? Is the "no" about the first point I made or the second? Or do you think I am wrong about both.
-
Where do you get the idea about how a real husband is suppossed to be? What is your criterion/furqan?
-
Is one women getting "half a man/husband" better than the other women getting no husband at all?
-
When do you plan on responding to my response to you here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg183254#msg183254 ?
-
-
No, because if she has to share a man, she's only getting half a man, and the existing wife loses half a man. Neither of them have a real husband.
Liguiddharma,
-
What do you mean "no"? Is the "no" about the first point I made or the second? Or do you think I am wrong about both.
-
Where do you get the idea about how a real husband is suppossed to be? What is your criterion/furqan?
-
Is one women getting "half a man/husband" better than the other women getting no husband at all?
-
When do you plan on responding to my response to you here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg183254#msg183254 ?
salam,
i agree with you a 100% in everything you say. and you are absolutley right.
but i must be completely honest with you after everythng i have been through from men wether it be my ex his brothers my father or brothers. if god sent me a man from heaven........i am really hating on all men, and for any women who think that they are above gods law, all lovi dovi with there husbands they can have them,i would rathere live alone for the rest of my life, then have any man of today be my husband, for the very reason is that they have no idea what god is, one either follows religion completely or not at all. > > brickwall -
-
salam,
i agree with you a 100% in everything you say. and you are absolutley right.
but i must be completely honest with you after everythng i have been through from men wether it be my ex his brothers my father or brothers. if god sent me a man from heaven........i am really hating on all men, and for any women who think that they are above gods law, all lovi dovi with there husbands they can have them,i would rathere live alone for the rest of my life, then have any man of today be my husband, for the very reason is that they have no idea what god is, one either follows religion completely or not at all. >( >( brickwallPeace Anna,
Take it easy sister!!!
Maria
-
Quote from Fahad
No one is forcing those women to get married. If they do not think it is worth it, they wouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Plus, the big number of women left unmarried in a monogamous world, will be more frustrated because they will have no sexual satisfaction at all, except through unlawful means.Yeah, greedy men taking care of multiple women, providing them with family and children! Those women would have been better off prostituting themselves, right? Isn't that what you want?
Again i will ask you to do some research leave your living room and check for yourself those men who have multiple wives whether he is treating all his wives equally or he just care for the last one and others are left on their own and frustrated.
-
Do you really mean equally? One's treatment can be equal and unjust/incorrect at the same time. Have you thought about that? Therefore equal treatment is not what is necessary, but correct treatment.
-
Cannot a monogynous man treat his wife unjustly/incorrectly? If so, why single out the polygynous one?
And have you checked whether they have married that man willfully or they are forced to marry him.
Did you yourself first check whether all monogynous marriages in the world are forced or consensual?
You said no one is forcing those women to get married .
Because, and I have already told you twice, that I was not talking about forced marriages but consensual ones. I don't regard "forced marriage" as a marriage.
Yes and if they marry someone on their free well then they are condemn to death,
Even in a monogamous marriage. Therefore it does not prove anything against polygyny.
Just see here if you have a human heart two days back what happened just right under your nose
http//www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\11\07\story_7-11-2008_pg7_15http//www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-16112467.html
I know you will say this has nothing to do with your question because you are brought up in a society who considers women as sex object they are tortured and killed if they ask for their rights.
-
Yes I will say that. So please just tell me what it has got to do with the topic of polygyny? Because that couple was monogamous.
-
Why won't you use this news item against monogamy?
Am I wrong that the big number of women left unmarried in a monogamous world will be more frustrated because they will have no sexual satisfaction at all, except through unlawful means?
Am I wrong that every woman has a right to have a husband and children?
Tell me.
Oh so would you please tell us that those women who are left unmarried in your kingdom due to shortage of men or the curse of dowry which you brought with you when you converted from Hinduism.
And by the way you are paying the dowry or ajar or the girl if she is poor she has to remain unmarried forever and pushed to prostitution.Is there any reason in the world that can prove me wrong in my two questions above? Did you even understand the questions? Can you rephrase them in your own words so that I am sure that you understood what I meant?
You haven't answered any of my questions. You can't defend a thing you say.
-
-
salam,
i agree with you a 100% in everything you say. and you are absolutley right.Wa salaam. Thanks.
but i must be completely honest with you after everythng i have been through from men wether it be my ex his brothers my father or brothers. if god sent me a man from heaven........i am really hating on all men, and for any women who think that they are above gods law, all lovi dovi with there husbands they can have them,i would rathere live alone for the rest of my life, then have any man of today be my husband, for the very reason is that they have no idea what god is, one either follows religion completely or not at all. >( >( brickwall
I am sure there are many men who think the same way about women. But you know that they are not right about women, the same way you are not right about men.
-
......, for the very reason is that they have no idea what god is, one either follows religion completely or not at all. >( >( brickwall
Salaam Anna
I agree with you absolutely! If men want more than one wife then give the wives their due rights and support and be there for them. If you can not deal justly with them then only one (not exact quote) AND dealing justly is not easy it's TOUGH!
A) Nowadays "Muslim" men find it diffiult to support even one wife. Most women are expected to, not only raise the children but also to bring home an income and look after the house too. On top of that no man is seriouly interested in taking on another headache as wife but just wants to use and abuse women who come handy as a mistress or a girlfriend.
Most " Muslim" men only think of taking more wives when their heart is set on a woman but they have no regard for the many women who have lost both their husband and their home in the midst of disasters/war, like in Iraq where you see women left to struggle on their own.
B) Many "Muslim" wives on the other hand suspect that their husbands are having fun outside marriage, but the idea of their husband taking another wife is abhorrent to them. In other words they are themselves making it easy for men to have affairs as taking another wife is no piece of cake.
C) The other " Muslim" woman, if she insists on her right to be taken as a wife then, clearly she is not cheaply available for fun only but the other woman, once she sees that the man is in love with her, expects him to break up his family rather than to share him as a husband. She would rather see him have an affair than to be generous enough to share love.
Finally I reiterate that I don?t find polygyny unfair to women as you are not allowed to inherit women by force nor are you allowed to take a woman for granted. In fact, if properly understood, it is to safeguard women against abuse. It would stop men from deceiving their wives and abusing other women behind the shield of monogamy but, sadly not many Muslim men understand the logic behind Polygyny and one forum member, who considers himself to be ?The voice of God? did not acknowledge the responsibilities associated with taking a wife but is, I believe, the whisper of a very different Potentate. He wrote
?If the gentleman had married one woman, went on to marry another woman, then married a third woman, all three without giving any one of them a talaq, this gentleman is well within the hudood, he has a right accorded to him by Allah to have more than one wife. To speak ill of his conduct is gheebat, his conduct is that of a momin.? ( >( brickwall -
No, because if she has to share a man, she's only getting half a man, and the existing wife loses half a man. Neither of them have a real husband.
Liquiddharma,
-
What do you mean "no"? Is the "no" about the first point I made or the second? Or do you think I am wrong about both.
-
Where do you get the idea about how a real husband is suppossed to be? What is your criterion/furqan?
-
Is one women getting "half a man/husband" better than the other women getting no husband at all?
-
When do you plan on responding to my response to you here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg183254#msg183254 ?
I assure you, "No" was a response to your second point, because only your second point was a question.
I get the idea of what a husband is meant to be from human nature. A husband has one brain and one penis. Both are required to bond with his wife, both physically and psychologically. Human beings are monogamous mammals, chemically speaking.
http//nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/3/monogamy.cfm
Is half a husband better than no husband? I don't think there is much difference morally between multiple wives and multiple husbands. Men and women are not so different. Both are undesirable and both lead to mistrust, exploitation and unhappiness. As I said, when the new wife gains half a husband, the old wife loses half a husband. So instead of having one functioning family, you have two broken families.
I think one functioning family is better than two broken families. But this is a false dichotomy. It is not the case that there are a shortage of men in the world. What is required is for husband a wife to work properly as a team, not to have more children than they can afford to look after, and both to use their skills and talents to keep the family unit working.
Instead of the rich man being a greedy pig, hoarding his wealth in a poor society and marrying all the young girls, he should instead invest his money in the community and create jobs, employ the jobless men so they can earn money and afford to marry the single women. Only backward, ignorant and greedy societies need to use polygamy because they are too corrupt to provide young men with work.
-
-
I assure you, "No" was a response to your second point, because only your second point was a question.
I get the idea of what a husband is meant to be from human nature. A husband has one brain and one penis. Both are required to bond with his wife, both physically and psychologically. Human beings are monogamous mammals, chemically speaking.
http//nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/3/monogamy.cfm
Is half a husband better than no husband? I don't think there is much difference morally between multiple wives and multiple husbands. Men and women are not so different. Both are undesirable and both lead to mistrust, exploitation and unhappiness. As I said, when the new wife gains half a husband, the old wife loses half a husband. So instead of having one functioning family, you have two broken families.
I think one functioning family is better than two broken families. But this is a false dichotomy. It is not the case that there are a shortage of men in the world. What is required is for husband a wife to work properly as a team, not to have more children than they can afford to look after, and both to use their skills and talents to keep the family unit working.
Instead of the rich man being a greedy pig, hoarding his wealth in a poor society and marrying all the young girls, he should instead invest his money in the community and create jobs, employ the jobless men so they can earn money and afford to marry the single women. Only backward, ignorant and greedy societies need to use polygamy because they are too corrupt to provide young men with work.
Humans are not biologically monogomous.
-
I assure you, "No" was a response to your second point, because only your second point was a question.
I get the idea of what a husband is meant to be from human nature. A husband has one brain and one penis. Both are required to bond with his wife, both physically and psychologically. Human beings are monogamous mammals, chemically speaking.
http//nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/3/monogamy.cfm
Is half a husband better than no husband? I don't think there is much difference morally between multiple wives and multiple husbands. Men and women are not so different. Both are undesirable and both lead to mistrust, exploitation and unhappiness. As I said, when the new wife gains half a husband, the old wife loses half a husband. So instead of having one functioning family, you have two broken families.
I think one functioning family is better than two broken families. But this is a false dichotomy. It is not the case that there are a shortage of men in the world. What is required is for husband a wife to work properly as a team, not to have more children than they can afford to look after, and both to use their skills and talents to keep the family unit working.
Instead of the rich man being a greedy pig, hoarding his wealth in a poor society and marrying all the young girls, he should instead invest his money in the community and create jobs, employ the jobless men so they can earn money and afford to marry the single women. Only backward, ignorant and greedy societies need to use polygamy because they are too corrupt to provide young men with work.
bravo bravo
-
Peace Elke.
Peace Fahad,
Well, that means something like 1+1=3...or more
I am sorry, i dont understand. How?
As to the statement of your last sentence ... i do not believe that polygamy reduces prostitution...
How many prostitutes do you think would have practiced polyandry if they could find a husband?
you know there are women that know how to gain a living without opening their legs for it
And there are women who don't. Plus, its not just about the financial needs. Its about their need to open their legs.
...AND a woman doing just that, as long as she's not being paid for it, is IMO not a prostitute.
Payment can be made in forms other than money. If she is getting whatever she wants from the man, thats her payment, her reward.
And what about male prostitution ?
What about it?
-
Humans are not biologically monogomous.
This is why I posted the link - it is quite detailed in describing the biochemistry of monogamy in mammals - including humans
Give a vole a dose of cocaine and dopamine is released in its nucleus accumbens. Likewise, let a vole mate for 24 hours, and dopamine is released in its nucleus accumbens. This holds true for every mammal, including humans, in which scientists have studied dopamine levels.
And now here's the trick, the little smackerel of data upon which this whole story hinges Monogamous voles, and every other monogamous mammal scientists have examined, have nucleus accumbens that are absolutely lousy with oxytocin receptors. The presence of these receptors means that when oxytocin is released by that 24-hour bout of mating, the nucleus accumbens can't help but stand up and take notice, neurons ablaze like fireworks on the Fourth of July.
Non-monogomous voles, on the other hand, don't have any oxytocin receptors in their nucleus accumbens. They likely find mating pleasurable, because the feel-good molecule dopamine is dumped all over the feel-good nucleus accumbens. But because they lack the proper receptors, their nucleus accumbens can't "hear" the wailing klaxon of billions of little oxytocin molecules flooding their brains. As a result, montane voles don't associate mating with a specific kind of pleasure with a specific partner. If we could read the montane vole's thoughts, he or she would be thinking "Gee, sex feels great!" Whereas the monogamous prairie vole would be thinking, "Gee, sex with this particular partner feels great!"
In this way, we can imagine that voles, humans, and many other monogamous mammals come to associate a particular partner with reward.
Note - the definition of monogamy in science is different from our definition. These biologists mean 'social monogamy' - i.e. the mammal prefers to live with one partner. It doesn't mean they don't cheat (i.e. commit adultery). They do, after all, they are animals. But they are monogamous because they fall in love with, choose to live with and regularly mate with only one partner - and this is chemically determined. Likewise, many human beings - men and women - engage in casual sex. However, this doesn't mean they aren't biologically monogamous, they still fall in love with one person. It's just that they don't have the strength of will to make good on this and live together properly.
I think religion in general, and Islam in particular, is something that is meant to help us to gain this will power we need to live properly an in accordance with out human nature.