Are men naturally polygynous?

[Estranged]

TL;DR: Is it in the nature of men to be polygynous or is it just a large minority of men who have this desire?

---------

I always believed that most men were, by nature, monogamous and the polygynous ones were in the minority. Admittedly, I judged this by how many men practiced monogamy and how many practiced polygyny. But lately I've been led to believe that even the monogamous ones desire polygyny but are unable to practice it for one reason or another.

Also, because humanity started with Adam and Hawa (as) as the two parents of our species. When Adam (as) felt lonely, Allah (Swt) created Hawa (as) who became his wife and companion. From this, I guess I grew up believing monogamy was more in tune with the nature of both men and women.

But then, in Jannah men will have multiple wives, and in this world polygyny is halal. Are the vast majority* of men, therefore, polygynous?

*I say vast majority because there are some who are asexual, and I have also heard some say they are naturally monogamous and polygyny doesn't appeal to them.

[Gaashaanle1000]

As humans we are quite strange and often times animalistic in our nature. Did you know that most men ever in existence have not passed on their genetic information to later generations?

Out of 100 men on average only about 40 of them will reproduce whereas the other 60 tend to go without ever having children and hence their genetic line comes to an abrupt end. For women it is another story, in that out of every 100 women, about 80 of them will reproduce. This means that most women are vying for the attention of that 40% of men that they deem acceptable to reproduce with. Naturally these men tend to therefore have multiple wives/concubines with whom they reproduce.

This fact is evident when you look at uni parental markers (Y chromosomal and mitochondrial) DNA among humans. There is far greater diversity on the maternal line, whereas there seem to be evident bottlenecks on the Y chromosomal male line. Human females tend to gather towards men with desirable traits, and often times this means high testosterone males.

So the real question is, why do women prefer to share a desirable male rather than have an undesirable male all to her self?

This is why in western countries it is highly advised that males stick to 1 female partner at a time. This gives all the males that would otherwise be thrown to the genetic trash can of history a reasonable chance to acquire a female and reproduce. Therefore they become more productive members of society.

[Estranged]

As humans we are quite strange and often times animalistic in our nature. Did you know that most men ever in existence have not passed on their genetic information to later generations?

Out of 100 men on average only about 40 of them will reproduce whereas the other 60 tend to go without ever having children and hence their genetic line comes to an abrupt end. For women it is another story, in that out of every 100 women, about 80 of them will reproduce. This means that most women are vying for the attention of that 40% of men that they deem acceptable to reproduce with. Naturally these men tend to therefore have multiple wives/concubines with whom they reproduce.

This fact is evident when you look at uni parental markers (Y chromosomal and mitochondrial) DNA among humans. There is far greater diversity on the maternal line, whereas there seem to be evident bottlenecks on the Y chromosomal male line. Human females tend to gather towards men with desirable traits, and often times this means high testosterone males.

So the real question is, why do women prefer to share a desirable male rather than have an undesirable male all to her self?

This is why in western countries it is highly advised that males stick to 1 female partner at a time. This gives all the males that would otherwise be thrown to the genetic trash can of history a reasonable chance to acquire a female and reproduce. Therefore they become more productive members of society.

Interesting. AFAIK, most women would loathe to share their husband. But I can see how women who are unable to find a decent spouse and struggle on their own would marry a man already wed. They don't have the luxury of choice.

So are you saying throughout history, men who practiced polygyny did so because of opportunity? If most men were offered the opportunity would they accept?

[gurey25]

As i man i can say that it is our innate nature to spread the seed.
Since monogamy is the ideal for social cohesion, allot of men like me, will keep it in their pants and stick with one woman.
but there is an ever present drive to bang as many women as possible.
Its a matter of willpower.

Women are the opposite, they prefer one mate.

It would be difficult for a women to understand the difference between a man who cheats on them and the one that stays loyal
is discipline and willpower.
It does not mean that he doesnt love you, its just that he is weak willed.
Now your loyal husband that never looks at another woman, looks perfect
but he may not even love you that much he just has more willpower.
While the cheating husband could be more loving and devoted, but lacked willpower.

[Estranged]

As i man i can say that it is our innate nature to spread the seed.
Since monogamy is the ideal for social cohesion, allot of men like me, will keep it in their pants and stick with one woman.
but there is an ever present drive to bang as many women as possible.
Its a matter of willpower.

Women are the opposite, they prefer one mate.

It would be difficult for a women to understand the difference between a man who cheats on them and the one that stays loyal
is discipline and willpower.
It does not mean that he doesnt love you, its just that he is weak willed.
Now your loyal husband that never looks at another woman, looks perfect
but he may not even love you that much he just has more willpower.
While the cheating husband could be more loving and devoted, but lacked willpower.

So a man can love a woman but still desire intimacy with another one? Yeah, it's really hard to understand.

I feel uncomfortable asking this but, doesn't intimacy mean much to a man? He can be intimate but emotionally removed?

[Gaashaanle1000]

Interesting. AFAIK, most women would loathe to share their husband. But I can see how women who are unable to find a decent spouse and struggle on their own would marry a man already wed. They don't have the luxury of choice.

So are you saying throughout history, men who practiced polygyny did so because of opportunity? If most men were offered the opportunity would they accept?

Men and women have different reproductive strategies and inclinations. A male produces millions upon millions of sperm every day, and therefore it is safe to say that there is no shortage. For this reason males developed a reproductive strategy whereby they could reproduce with the maximum amount of females in order to pass on their genes. It is however also smart for a male to invest both time and energy in order to ensure his offspring reach adulthood and reproduce further.

Powerful men with a lot of resources are able to ensure they do this with multiple women. Whereas a man with less resources and power would probably be better advised sticking to one woman. Some men (usually high testosterone types) prefer to sleep with as many women as possible without investing any time and energy on any offspring that result from their unions. In that case, such a male is playing a numbers game, whereby some of his offspring will surely reach adulthood despite his absence. Especially in this day and age whereby women have the government to support them.

Women on the other hand have a completely different reproductive strategy. They carry the offspring in their body, and even risk death when giving birth. As such she has to think deeply about the sort of mate she chooses. It is speculated that many women play the game of hypergamy, in which they choose males of a higher social order and class. Many also are involved in cuckolding with males of high testosterone and superior genes secretly reproducing with them, whilst a lower testosterone more financially or socially stable and dependable male (often times referred to as beta males) are left with raising the kids in the the belief that they are his.

For the above reasons women are more willing to share a desirable male, than stay with an undesirable one and be the only wife/girlfriend. Polygamy in part exists due to the mating strategies of women along with men. Women have a finite amount of eggs and a small reproductive window (between puberty and menopause) whereby she can have children. Hence she must be very picky in what she settles for. Males have a longer reproductive shelf life. Also consider that even if all males suddenly no longer existed apart from one fertile male on the entire planet. He would be able to impregnate all the women of earth and replenish the human population. Even if he was not able to physically do it, with the aid of technology it could be done (remember males produce billions of sperm per life time).

Consider the opposite of the above scenario, we can safely say that one woman would not be able to replenish the human population. Very likely that extinction would follow!

[Estranged]

Interesting. AFAIK, most women would loathe to share their husband. But I can see how women who are unable to find a decent spouse and struggle on their own would marry a man already wed. They don't have the luxury of choice.

So are you saying throughout history, men who practiced polygyny did so because of opportunity? If most men were offered the opportunity would they accept?

Men and women have different reproductive strategies and inclinations. A male produces millions upon millions of sperm every day, and therefore it is safe to say that there is no shortage. For this reason males developed a reproductive strategy whereby they could reproduce with the maximum amount of females in order to pass on their genes. It is however also smart for a male to invest both time and energy in order to ensure his offspring reach adulthood and reproduce further.

Powerful men with a lot of resources are able to ensure they do this with multiple women. Whereas a man with less resources and power would probably be better advised sticking to one woman. Some men (usually high testosterone types) prefer to sleep with as many women as possible without investing any time and energy on any offspring that result from their unions. In that case, such a male is playing a numbers game, whereby some of his offspring will surely reach adulthood despite his absence. Especially in this day and age whereby women have the government to support them.

Women on the other hand have a completely different reproductive strategy. They carry the offspring in their body, and even risk death when giving birth. As such she has to think deeply about the sort of mate she chooses. It is speculated that many women play the game of hypergamy, in which they choose males of a higher social order and class. Many also are involved in cuckolding with males of high testosterone and superior genes secretly reproducing with them, whilst a lower testosterone more financially or socially stable and dependable male (often times referred to as beta males) are left with raising the kids in the the belief that they are his.

For the above reasons women are more willing to share a desirable male, than stay with an undesirable one and be the only wife/girlfriend. Polygamy in part exists due to the mating strategies of women along with men. Women have a finite amount of eggs and a small reproductive window (between puberty and menopause) whereby she can have children. Hence she must be very picky in what she settles for. Males have a longer reproductive shelf life. Also consider that even if all males suddenly no longer existed apart from one fertile male on the entire planet. He would be able to impregnate all the women of earth and replenish the human population. Even if he was not able to physically do it, with the aid of technology it could be done (remember males produce billions of sperm per life time).

Consider the opposite of the above scenario, we can safely say that one woman would not be able to replenish the human population. Very likely that extinction would follow!

That's looking at it from a psychological and evolutionary stand point. And I see it as theories and pseudo-science. If we accept what they say about men, we have to also accept what they say about women; and that can't happen because it means the innate nature of women goes against the morals of Islam, which we of course don't believe.

Also, humanity began with one woman and one man. So that proves your last statement wrong.

[Futurist]

Yes we are.

[Gaashaanle1000]

That's looking at it from a psychological and evolutionary stand point. And I see it as theories and pseudo-science. If we accept what they say about men, we have to also accept what they say about women; and that can't happen because it means the innate nature of women goes against the morals of Islam, which we of course don't believe.

Also, humanity began with one woman and one man. So that proves your last statement wrong.

Fair enough

But I would not consider it "pseudo-science" just because it does not live up to your standards of what is true science.

There is a sahih hadith that clearly states the following:

It was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that women will form the majority of the people of Hell. It was narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”

(Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3241; Muslim, 2737)

Take from that what you will.

Also in the case of one woman replenishing the entire human population. You clearly missed the point. In the case of Hawa (Eve) she and Adam were two individuals ordained to spread human beings on this planet. They likely were made very fertile and with a high genetic diversity producing all the races and ethnicities you see on Earth today.

But in my scenario, it would be the opposite of what I suggested earlier. Meaning one woman and billions of men. That would not turn out well, and any one with an ounce of intelligence could figure that out. Consider that the woman would at max give a few children, whereas a man in the same scenario could theoretically replace all the missing human population in less than a decade by impregnating every single female.

[Sumubaridi]

All men are naturally polygamous and would love to get as many women as they can if not limited by resources, health or laws etc. Women are fascinated by so many other things like beauty, more cloths, love, attention, etc. Man are fascinated by women. I could go hungry and butt naked and get a women. A woman would rather get a beautiful couch purse, nice cologne, jeweler and a nice car rather than a man.

If you have a man who tells you he would not love to get another women besides you, he is lying and knows his limits. If you take the same man to Nairobi, give him a booming business and feel manly like other Africans, he will tell you he is getting another woman whether you commit suicide or go on a hunger strike. I used to tell my EX I loved her so much and Will never think of another woman. Istaaqfurullaah I used to long for all those butts swinging in the mall when I go with her.

[Futurist]

There is a sahih hadith that clearly states the following:

It was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that women will form the majority of the people of Hell. It was narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”

(Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3241; Muslim, 2737)

Wouldn't this be explained by simple demographics i.e. in most societies there are more women than men, therefore even in hell there will be more women than men.

Also in the case of one woman replenishing the entire human population. You clearly missed the point. In the case of Hawa (Eve) she and Adam were two individuals ordained to spread human beings on this planet. They likely were made very fertile and with a high genetic diversity producing all the races and ethnicities you see on Earth today.

I've always wondered how this worked in practice. Since incest is haram/forbidden, how exactly did only two people populate the earth?

[Futurist]

P.S ive been reading this thread with interest, as an ignorant observer. By all means keep the discussion going

[gurey25]

As i man i can say that it is our innate nature to spread the seed.
Since monogamy is the ideal for social cohesion, allot of men like me, will keep it in their pants and stick with one woman.
but there is an ever present drive to bang as many women as possible.
Its a matter of willpower.

Women are the opposite, they prefer one mate.

It would be difficult for a women to understand the difference between a man who cheats on them and the one that stays loyal
is discipline and willpower.
It does not mean that he doesnt love you, its just that he is weak willed.
Now your loyal husband that never looks at another woman, looks perfect
but he may not even love you that much he just has more willpower.
While the cheating husband could be more loving and devoted, but lacked willpower.

So a man can love a woman but still desire intimacy with another one? Yeah, it's really hard to understand.

I feel uncomfortable asking this but, doesn't intimacy mean much to a man? He can be intimate but emotionally removed?

I told you that it would be difficult to understand, but I see that you want to
The best way is to imagine yourself in a man's shoes and think of having the ever present desire always running in the background.

You asked about intimacy, thus is not intimacy it's a physical desire. You see men's sexuality is more physical than women. Women require a stronger emotional connection to enjoy sex, dating courtship, marriage etc.

Another way at looking at things, consider this thought experiment.

There is this man for example, he is the most attractive man you have ever seen, but he is dirt poor, and has a menial job. Would you still find him attractive?
His status has a big impact on desirability.

Now let's say I come across a janitor cleaning toilets and her dress is covered in stains, but she is physically attractive.
Her status will have zero bearing on the vast majority of straight men, and I would definitely sleep with her if given the chance.

[BVSNet]

45-55% of married women engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their marriage

It's not a male/female question. It's a decent human being/prick question


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 8v01n03_03

[Estranged]

That's looking at it from a psychological and evolutionary stand point. And I see it as theories and pseudo-science. If we accept what they say about men, we have to also accept what they say about women; and that can't happen because it means the innate nature of women goes against the morals of Islam, which we of course don't believe.

Also, humanity began with one woman and one man. So that proves your last statement wrong.

There is a sahih hadith that clearly states the following:

It was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that women will form the majority of the people of Hell. It was narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”

(Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3241; Muslim, 2737)

Take from that what you will.

That's dishonest. You make it sound as though it's women's deviant sexual desires that resulted in them forming the majority of the inhabitants of hell. When the Prophet (Saw) was asked why they formed the majority, he answers because of their ingratitude (towards their husbands). (Ref: Bukhari, 1052)

Also in the case of one woman replenishing the entire human population. You clearly missed the point. In the case of Hawa (Eve) she and Adam were two individuals ordained to spread human beings on this planet. They likely were made very fertile and with a high genetic diversity producing all the races and ethnicities you see on Earth today.

But in my scenario, it would be the opposite of what I suggested earlier. Meaning one woman and billions of men. That would not turn out well, and any one with an ounce of intelligence could figure that out. Consider that the woman would at max give a few children, whereas a man in the same scenario could theoretically replace all the missing human population in less than a decade by impregnating every single female.

Gartey, but it's not that relevant to the topic at hand. You're just discussing the potential men have for having many offspring. This is evident, but polygyny (in Islam) involves being committed to each women. Not just reproducing like rabbits.