Keeping a Concubine

[scarbowl]

If only humans could accept that sex was intended solely for procreation...

  This is clearly a windup.  Do YOU have sex ONLY when you intend to have a child as a result?  So after menopause a couple wouldn't bother anymore?  (Sounds orthodox Catholic but I doubt they even follow this.)

[Jerk Royale 8]

If only humans could accept that sex was intended solely for procreation...

You seriously think that planet earth can sustain 6 trillion people?

Oh perlease. As 'Climate Change' gets de-bunked, is this the new thing to terrorise and tax the people on, fighting supposed global over-population?

JR8, before you shoot yourself in the foot - check the records here and see who were among the very few were consistently debunking global warming.

[A conundrum]

The other sunday I was outside Forum on Orchard road and observed a Gulf Arab family in full regalia waiting at the traffic lights. There was the father in his white robes, two wives in black robes, holding their shopping, and three kids. To begin with it seemed strange to me- not the kind of family unit I am used to, and hard to reconcile it as a family on an outing (even though that was exactly what it was)

I then looked across the road and saw a (married) Australian work colleague and friends exit from Orchard Towers. Each with two young ladies on their arms. Who were most definately not his legal family. Strangely enough I was less shocked by this than watching the Arab family. And then I got thinking why? Was I a hypocrite to prejudge the Arab more3 harshly than the Australian?

 In both cases there was polygamy going on. Formal in the Arab case, informally in the Australian one. In the case of the Gulf Arab everything was above board- his society, his wives all knew what was going on, and they were one recognised, open family unit.

In the Australian case there was no doubt duplicity going on. He would not tell his wife and family back home about his OT escapades (although perhaps she may have known and chosen to close one eye). Although strangely enough he probably wouldnt have a problem telling his mates, who would have responded with either "what goes on tour stays on tour", or "what she doesnt know wont hurt her". Within the Australian male mate culture there is at least an informal acceptance of polygamy in some circles.

So here is the conundrum- in this case who is more honest? The Arab or the Australian?

[JR8]

If only humans could accept that sex was intended solely for procreation...

You seriously think that planet earth can sustain 6 trillion people?

Oh perlease. As 'Climate Change' gets de-bunked, is this the new thing to terrorise and tax the people on, fighting supposed global over-population?

p.s. A population of 6 trillion you say? I think you're being a little zealous (aka loony-tunes), it's 6 billion. Why don't you think the world can support that... you don't say.

You are totally lost, aren't you? Look at what Grapes is responding too. What happens when you don't use contraception? How many times do you screw in your life-time? How many babies will you produce?

Learn how to read and understand first before you purlease perlease.

Ah I see you have appointed yourself defender-of-Grapes, and are interpreting what he meant for us all. How sweet of you.

Perhaps you think that someone throwing out a statistic that is 100000% wrong should just be left to go their way?

Jerk Royale wrote:
JR8, before you shoot yourself in the foot - check the records here and see who were among the very few were consistently debunking global warming.

Pleased to meet you too Jerk.

[How did]

The other sunday I was outside Forum on Orchard road and observed a Gulf Arab family in full regalia waiting at the traffic lights. There was the father in his white robes, two wives in black robes, holding their shopping, and three kids. To begin with it seemed strange to me- not the kind of family unit I am used to, and hard to reconcile it as a family on an outing (even though that was exactly what it was)

I then looked across the road and saw a (married) Australian work colleague and friends exit from Orchard Towers. Each with two young ladies on their arms. Who were most definately not his legal family. Strangely enough I was less shocked by this than watching the Arab family. And then I got thinking why? Was I a hypocrite to prejudge the Arab more3 harshly than the Australian?

 In both cases there was polygamy going on. Formal in the Arab case, informally in the Australian one. In the case of the Gulf Arab everything was above board- his society, his wives all knew what was going on, and they were one recognised, open family unit.

In the Australian case there was no doubt duplicity going on. He would not tell his wife and family back home about his OT escapades (although perhaps she may have known and chosen to close one eye). Although strangely enough he probably wouldnt have a problem telling his mates, who would have responded with either "what goes on tour stays on tour", or "what she doesnt know wont hurt her". Within the Australian male mate culture there is at least an informal acceptance of polygamy in some circles.

So here is the conundrum- in this case who is more honest? The Arab or the Australian?

Did you know that the women with the Arab were his wives?

[Aiyo!]

The other sunday I was outside Forum on Orchard road and observed a Gulf Arab family in full regalia waiting at the traffic lights. There was the father in his white robes, two wives in black robes, holding their shopping, and three kids. To begin with it seemed strange to me- not the kind of family unit I am used to, and hard to reconcile it as a family on an outing (even though that was exactly what it was)

I then looked across the road and saw a (married) Australian work colleague and friends exit from Orchard Towers. Each with two young ladies on their arms. Who were most definately not his legal family. Strangely enough I was less shocked by this than watching the Arab family. And then I got thinking why? Was I a hypocrite to prejudge the Arab more3 harshly than the Australian?

 In both cases there was polygamy going on. Formal in the Arab case, informally in the Australian one. In the case of the Gulf Arab everything was above board- his society, his wives all knew what was going on, and they were one recognised, open family unit.

In the Australian case there was no doubt duplicity going on. He would not tell his wife and family back home about his OT escapades (although perhaps she may have known and chosen to close one eye). Although strangely enough he probably wouldnt have a problem telling his mates, who would have responded with either "what goes on tour stays on tour", or "what she doesnt know wont hurt her". Within the Australian male mate culture there is at least an informal acceptance of polygamy in some circles.

So here is the conundrum- in this case who is more honest? The Arab or the Australian?

Did you know that the women with the Arab were his wives?

I can't even begin to unravel this awful analogy, what with all the crap assumptions. Try again.

[man in the mirror]

Strangely enough I was less shocked by this than watching the Arab family.

This whole load of crap says more about you than it does about any of the people you (say you) saw...

What unbelievable judgement, even if I did buy into your completely unbelievable story.

[i wondered that too]

The other sunday I was outside Forum on Orchard road and observed a Gulf Arab family in full regalia waiting at the traffic lights. There was the father in his white robes, two wives in black robes, holding their shopping, and three kids. To begin with it seemed strange to me- not the kind of family unit I am used to, and hard to reconcile it as a family on an outing (even though that was exactly what it was)

I then looked across the road and saw a (married) Australian work colleague and friends exit from Orchard Towers. Each with two young ladies on their arms. Who were most definately not his legal family. Strangely enough I was less shocked by this than watching the Arab family. And then I got thinking why? Was I a hypocrite to prejudge the Arab more3 harshly than the Australian?

 In both cases there was polygamy going on. Formal in the Arab case, informally in the Australian one. In the case of the Gulf Arab everything was above board- his society, his wives all knew what was going on, and they were one recognised, open family unit.

In the Australian case there was no doubt duplicity going on. He would not tell his wife and family back home about his OT escapades (although perhaps she may have known and chosen to close one eye). Although strangely enough he probably wouldnt have a problem telling his mates, who would have responded with either "what goes on tour stays on tour", or "what she doesnt know wont hurt her". Within the Australian male mate culture there is at least an informal acceptance of polygamy in some circles.

So here is the conundrum- in this case who is more honest? The Arab or the Australian?

Did you know that the women with the Arab were his wives?

Yes, isn't it possible that one was the wife & the other her sister or his sister or one could've even been the grandmother (I didn't see them, so I can't make a guess as to if one looked old enough or not). Hell, maybe one was their maid. So, yes, how do you know they were both his wives?

[TheWrathOfGrapes]

If only humans could accept that sex was intended solely for procreation...

You seriously think that planet earth can sustain 6 trillion people?

Oh perlease. As 'Climate Change' gets de-bunked, is this the new thing to terrorise and tax the people on, fighting supposed global over-population?

p.s. A population of 6 trillion you say? I think you're being a little zealous (aka loony-tunes), it's 6 billion. Why don't you think the world can support that... you don't say.

JR8 - I do mean 6 trillion. As it is, the population of the world is currently more than 6.8 billion and planet earth can definitely support more than 6.8 billion people.

If sex is solely for procreation, the world's population will explode exponentially and reach 6 trillion in no time. Let's do some quick and dirty calculation.

Assume half the world's population are women, say 3.40 billion
Assume one quarter are of child-bearing age, say 0.85 billion people
Each child-bearing woman can give birth to 20 children in her lifetime = 17 billion
That is in just one generation.
6.8, 17.0, 42.5, 106.25, 265.63, 664.06, 1660.16, 4150.39, 10,375.95

10.37 trillion in just 8 generations.

Remember, those whose religious belief is that sex is only for procreation will also object to onanism or coitus interruptus.

[Suntec]

The other sunday I was outside Forum on Orchard road and observed a Gulf Arab family in full regalia waiting at the traffic lights. There was the father in his white robes, two wives in black robes, holding their shopping, and three kids. To begin with it seemed strange to me- not the kind of family unit I am used to, and hard to reconcile it as a family on an outing (even though that was exactly what it was)

I then looked across the road and saw a (married) Australian work colleague and friends exit from Orchard Towers. Each with two young ladies on their arms. Who were most definately not his legal family. Strangely enough I was less shocked by this than watching the Arab family. And then I got thinking why? Was I a hypocrite to prejudge the Arab more3 harshly than the Australian?

 In both cases there was polygamy going on. Formal in the Arab case, informally in the Australian one. In the case of the Gulf Arab everything was above board- his society, his wives all knew what was going on, and they were one recognised, open family unit.

In the Australian case there was no doubt duplicity going on. He would not tell his wife and family back home about his OT escapades (although perhaps she may have known and chosen to close one eye). Although strangely enough he probably wouldnt have a problem telling his mates, who would have responded with either "what goes on tour stays on tour", or "what she doesnt know wont hurt her". Within the Australian male mate culture there is at least an informal acceptance of polygamy in some circles.

So here is the conundrum- in this case who is more honest? The Arab or the Australian?

Did you know that the women with the Arab were his wives?

Yes, isn't it possible that one was the wife & the other her sister or his sister or one could've even been the grandmother (I didn't see them, so I can't make a guess as to if one looked old enough or not). Hell, maybe one was their maid. So, yes, how do you know they were both his wives?

I saw an Arab with three wives the other day at Suntec. At least I'm guessing they were his wives- they were all about the same age and looking after the kids.

How does it work if a polygamous family goes on holiday? Do they take one hotel room or many?

[SQ]

and what happens if the airline decides to give the family two business class upgrades?  How does he decide which wife will go up front with him and which one will stay behind with the kids?

[Arabian-in-Denial]

Why cant people accept that there ARE happy polygamous couples ?

[JR8]

Assume half the world's population are women, say 3.40 billion
Assume one quarter are of child-bearing age, say 0.85 billion people
Each child-bearing woman can give birth to 20 children in her lifetime = 17 billion
That is in just one generation.
6.8, 17.0, 42.5, 106.25, 265.63, 664.06, 1660.16, 4150.39, 10,375.95

10.37 trillion in just 8 generations.

Hi Grapes,
How would the numbers look if the average woman had the oft-cited '2.2 children'. Or indeed, as recently cited by LKY regarding Singapore, less than 2?


p.s. I think your projection of each fertile women giving birth to 20 children is a little 'out there' you know. Lord knows what the ladies here think of it!  

[TheWrathOfGrapes]

Assume half the world's population are women, say 3.40 billion
Assume one quarter are of child-bearing age, say 0.85 billion people
Each child-bearing woman can give birth to 20 children in her lifetime = 17 billion
That is in just one generation.
6.8, 17.0, 42.5, 106.25, 265.63, 664.06, 1660.16, 4150.39, 10,375.95

10.37 trillion in just 8 generations.

Hi Grapes,
How would the numbers look if the average woman had the oft-cited '2.2 children'. Or indeed, as recently cited by LKY regarding Singapore, less than 2?


p.s. I think your projection of each fertile women giving birth to 20 children is a little 'out there' you know. Lord knows what the ladies here think of it!  

How would the number look?  Exactly 6,807,700,000 - wow, the US Census Bureau is quite precise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

The current world population stands at this number - relatively low birth rate - due to many factors - stop at 1 policy in China, dinkies (double income no kids), selfishness, condoms, IUDs, dutch caps, pills, abortion, coitus interruptus, etc etc. A couple must have copulated thousands of times in their lifetimes, but only resulting in a few births.

No, 20 children in a women's life span is not at all "out there". Say, the fertile period is from puberty (age 15, give or take a few years) to menopause (age 50, plus or minus a few years).  That is 35 years of productive time. Say, give a few months of rest and lactation, technically, the woman can have one baby per year. So, 20 children per lifetime is conservative.

Remember, the post that give rise to this digression - sex should be for procreation.

[Old Mike]

So, 20 children per lifetime is conservative.

Remember, the post that give rise to this digression - sex should be for procreation

Just look at what happened to Victorian families. Lots and lots of kids, most of whom died at an early age. The high reproductive rate was necessary to keep the human race going. Life expectancy in Victoria's Britain was around 40 years.The average age of marriage was 25, so not many childbearing years.