The Polygyny Threshold and Pattaya
The polygyny threshold model is an explanation of polygyny, the mating of one male of a species with multiple females. The model shows how females may gain a higher level of biological fitness by mating with a male who already has a mate. The female makes this choice despite other surrounding males because the choice male's territory, food supply, or other important characteristics are better than those of his competitors, even with two females on the territory.
Can science be on the side of fat, old, bald losers whose best known tribe lives in the rare jungle environment that is known as Pattaya? Think about it. And to help you, here are some contrarian thoughts that involve a modern, developed
(though somewhat politically correct nation with many males whipped by young cats) country.
A recent article written by a Feminist journalist brought to light preparations for a challenge in the province’s Supreme Court by the Attorney General of British Columbia over cases of two men who married within the terms of their
religion many women and kept them as wives. The men were arrested on charges of polygamy but they were subsequently stayed as the prosecution got wobbly in the knees about violating the religious rights of the men.
Now, the Attorney General in preparing his case turned to a guy who holds the Canada Research Chair in Culture, Cognition, and Co-evolution – is that Clear? Anyway, the Feminist writer says, by way of endorsing the learned fellow’s
qualifications, that he had never really thought about the issue until he was asked to by the lead lawyer who was to present the case. Gee, I said to myself, I wonder what kind of an unbiased report he will make. Here it is.
Even if the law is unconstitutional it is justified because what happens in polygynyis that the rich guys scoop up most of the women and the younger guys are left without marriage partners and they cause social havoc-drunkenness, violence,
crime-all because they have no one to marry. But if only one man can have one wife we have none of this. What did I miss here? I mean if today’s prisons are filled with single guys, let’s marry them off and get them home. And as
far as your homosexuals go, they have to return to being an abomination or enter into sham unions with women. Wait a second, I just realized that is why homosexuality is an abomination – it’s caused by rich bastards marrying more than one
wife. God, we’ll be overrun with gay pride festivals if we allow men to have more than one wife at the same time.
Note I said ‘at the same time’ because it is quite alright to have more than wife but not at the same time. And if I remember correctly, the no-fault divorce laws with generous awards to ex-wives (not now Sir Paul – go talk
to John Cleese!), and a 50% rate means there are all kinds of single women on the market. And single men, too who are causing social havoc. Oh, right, that’s the Pattaya tribe we’re talking about, isn’t it. Still, why is it
you can have as many mistresses as you like and can afford but not as many wives. Same with girlfriends – oh, yeah, congratulations Rod Stewart on your sixth, you old havocker you. Sorry, I guess I’m thick but I can’t get my head
around the argument that having more than one committed relationship at a time should be banned when the same society makes breaking up legal and easy and in our social interests.
What I love about Feminist writers is that life and truth mean whatever they say it means today.
But here is what I think, though like the aforementioned scholar, I didn’t think about this until two weeks ago (well, that makes me qualified, don’t it?).
First, in all of the analysis there is a presumption that the male polygunner makes the decisions. Any male with half an ounce of testosterone knows that marriage is the woman’s decision – a man can only ask. If the woman is happy
being one of a crowd, why should the state care? And looking at things from her point of view, she gets security, her own place, her own children and she doesn’t have to put up with much snoring as hubby does the rounds. One guy in the
States is supposed to have 80 wives – if he’s regular and fit (how could he be, mentally, anyway) she has to cook him dinner maybe 3 – 4 times a year. The woman is free to explore her nature and capability as a woman.
Polygyny preserves the family fortune. The woman can still sue for divorce but she won’t get anything close to a 50% settlement plus support – think of the interests of the other wives and children.
The likelihood of domestic violence goes way down, possibly to zero. The wives talk and would soon know everything. And women being women, they will keep a close eye on who is spending what so there will be a great deal more equality amongst
the women themselves. They can band together on matters of mutual interest like a village against their single man.
The man can be as sexually satisfied with all the variety he wants and thus, given that these are committed relationships sanctified by marriage, there should be virtually no unfaithfulness. Bonus!!
Ah, but the last one is the real reason to pursue the monogamy agenda. Women just don’t like the idea that a man might satisfy himself as he pleases. And I will admit that the assets available in divorce are a close second. Next to
these, you can just feel the convoluted, awkward, and sheer cockamamie arguments that monogamy is in a man’s and society’s best interests. But that’s what happens when you get the Feminists and politically correct crowd on
the same merry-go-round
So, I’m thinking the losers in Pattaya, sharing their resources with as many females as they can, are actually doing not only the right thing but a naturally beneficial thing by improving the environment for the women who cozy up to
them. Otherwise they’d be back in the West causing havoc and mayhem. Losers, we salute you!!
Very interesting perspective indeed and one I bet many readers can relate to.