Friday, October 30, 2015

No Sharing: The Science of Polygamy

No Sharing
~The Science of Polygamy~

I once had a polygynous relationship for over a year. Polygyny is a form of polygamy where a man has a relationship with two or more women. It wasn't the kind of relationship I sought after or even considered having at the time. The opportunity was presented to me and I agreed. I was young, naive and learning its perimeters in real time. Now let me get this straight from the door, it wasn't a habitat for threesomes nor was I lying in the valley of the skins. That's not the purpose of polygamy; it's much more sophisticated and civil than that, well at least it should be. Polygamy, and polygyny in particular, goes back many centuries to classical and indigenous societies who sought to resolve the growing disparity between male and female ratios, family/community deterioration and moral decay. Depending upon where you went or still go in the world, that human sex ratio disparity can be as large as 12 females to every male or as low as 2 females for every male.

In the United States from the 1950s to the 1990s a Dr. William Masters and his assistant Virginia Johnson pioneered research on human sexual response in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. The significance of their research is that it explored the nature of female arousal and orgasms; which many males knew nothing about or didn't want to know anything about even to this day. From the perspective of this society, "sex" is generally defined as male pleasure and the "sexual act" is considered complete after a male has an orgasm. Like today, and during the time of Masters and Johnson's research, males didn't want to explore or even talk about female arousal and orgasms because our ability to help her achieve sexual arousal and orgasm is called into question. So instead of facing the fact that we may be impotent or simply unable to please a woman, males played, and play, the blame game by calling a woman frigid. This male insecurity runs so deep that even the MPAA [Motion Picture Association of America] rates films pornographic or NC-17 even if a fully clothed woman appears to be experiencing arousal or an orgasm. NC-17 was once called "X-rated" and I encourage you to research NC-17 big box office hits and you'll understand the cultural and socioeconomic impact of such a rating. Not only is it an award season kiss of death but it's a mark against women enjoying sex on film.

Within this society males are socialized to get their rocks off and slut-shame females who are doing the same thing. According to that "get my rocks off" logic, when a female isn't aroused and hasn't reached orgasm, it lowers the chances of having a male child when a male ejaculates inside of her. The alkaline secretions in a female's vagina increases each time she orgasms. This simultaneously decreases its acidic level which is an unfavorable environment for sperm survival; especially Y-chromosome sperm. Also, because healthy cervical mucous of a female is alkaline, if we're daddy long stroke and can use the right sex positions to deposit our sperm inside of the cervix, it's a shorter distance for Y-chromosomes to travel in order to reach the egg. The fact that many females within the United States practice a standard American diet high in meat, dairy, white sugar/high fructose corn syrup, processed foods and few fruits/vegetables makes her body as a whole more acidic than alkaline. This is not to put it all of her because many of us males have a low sperm count for some of the very same dietary reasons, including drug use, alcoholism, erectile dysfunction and of course depression. I mention the research of Masters and Johnson, MPAA film ratings and how female arousal and orgasm plays a role in gender determination to show some of the psychological, sociological and physiological factors that directly effects the human sex ratio.

Now what do these ratios have to do with polygamy? According to human sex ratios, one thing that is generally consistent across the board is that there has been and are more females on the planet Earth than males. When this isn't the case.., where you do see a disproportionate amount of males to females.., it's usually the direct result of conditions such as gendercide, pollution, aging/death rate, poor diet, genetics, sex selective abortions and infanticide. Traditionally, some societies used more humane solutions to bring to balance its human sex ratios where females outnumbered males. In addition to these conditions, two of the main reasons for this disparity in human sex ratios were war-time casualties and short male lifespans that left widows and orphans behind. Polygyny became the first social security system; it provided a safety net for its women and children who had no husband and father. Plural marriage was also established to maintain the moral fabric of the society dealing with these disparities. In many instances where there were not enough available males there was an increase in adultery, lesbianism, prostitution, divorce, alcoholism/drug use, mental illness and other societal ills. All of these social ills erode the moral fabric of any society. Polygyny was a solution to a society where there were more females than males, and even though it was and is well intended, you may not have men of integrity participating in it. This lack of integrity only compounded and compounds the issues of providing social security for our women and children, especially in a patriarchal society.

In many American cities, like in various countries and cities around the world, the odds are against a female finding a single available male companion; we're unavailable, literally. Without understanding these human sex ratios some females may simply be under the impression that males are born cheaters and some females are naturally desperate. Some females may also believe that what I'm saying isn't true and they're going to find a man and have a lifelong monogamous relationship with him. The reality is in a city where there's 6 females to every male, you're most likely to be one of the 5 females who won't have a man; unless of course you openly/privately share him, you make him pay to be with you or you strive to take him from another woman. Some women just decide to be in a relationship with one or more of the other 4 women who are left. That is the reality, regardless how much we pray, hope or believe differently. Keep in mind that there are also societies that practice polyandry. Polyandry, although not as common, is also a form of polygamy where a woman has a relationship with two or more men. This plural marriage was likewise established for the same reasons; to bring into balance the human sex ratio disparity where males outnumber(ed) females. This was also done to help maintain the moral fabric of the society where adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, violence, alcoholism/drug use, mental illness and other societal ills would increase because of the lack of available females.

One of the questions I often ask males who advocate polygamy is, "Do you advocate polyandry as equally important as polygyny?" Some may have never heard of it. Others that have heard of it don't consider it equally important. My perspective is this: If we truly understand the purpose of polygamy, we should have no problem practicing polygyny or polyandry if that's what our society needs to effectively address its human sex ratio disparities, family/community deterioration and moral decay. I'm sure that's a hard pill to swallow for many of us males/men but that's the kind of sacrifice we're asking our women to make for the greater good of maintaining our society. We should likewise be willing to make that same sacrifice if called upon to do it.

As Five Percenters, we like other classical and indigenous societies recognize polygyny as a viable solution to the human sex ratio disparities and moral decay. Even though we recognize plural marriage, it does not mean that all Five Percenters participate in it. When we do, polygyny is a relationship established for the women. It's not supposed to be a man throwing two women together for his personal benefit. It's women coming together as sisters and deciding to share a relationship with a man who is capable of benefiting them, the family and community. The man should be in a position to decide whether that relationship benefits him too, thus benefiting the family and the community. When a woman or women are already willing to have a plural marriage and bring the idea to him, he already knows up front that they have some vested interest in it working out. Everybody is invested. If he comes up with the idea and independently brings it to his woman or women, they don't have the same vested interest in making sure it works out; that's his idea and his responsibility. This can easily become a sabotage scenario. In my experience, it wasn't my idea and I agreed to that relationship when I saw that it benefited all of us. It didn't work out because the first woman, who brought the idea to me in the first place, became insecure within the relationship and decided to end it. I was young and didn't fully understand how to deal with co-Queen rivalry, jealousy, time sharing and other important factors to maintain such a sophisticated relationship.

In today's society we find ourselves dealing with many and more of the exact same problems that polygyny successfully addressed in the past, and still address today. Do I think that this is a viable solution? Partially, yet it's not a silver bullet. With the level of emotional instability, lack of financial literacy/stability, integrity and various other things that plague many of us males, many of us are unprepared to handle such a sophisticated relationship. That is a tragedy because many women are left to their own devices and our families, and communities, suffer behind it. At the same time there are some of us men who are prepared to maintain a polygynous relationship yet many women are unprepared to handle such a sophisticated relationship. Aside from the emotional instability, lack of financial literacy/stability, integrity and etc., some women just don't see other women as sisters to the point where they're willing and able to share this kind of relationship. Even the best of women, including Five Percenters, find it difficult to do this. Whatever the reasoning is, if we're not considering polygyny as a viable solution to the human sex ratio disparities, family/community deterioration and moral decay in our societies, we need to come up with a better idea. Our future generations depend upon it.

Post a Comment