Should Africans return to Polygamy instead of serial monogam

[Festus]

Should Africans return to Polygamy instead of serial monogamy and Polyfidelity?


A few days weeks ago I had a chat with an older Ghanaian lady regarding the explosion of ‘single mothers’, ‘babies mamas’ and commitment ‘desperadoes’ amongst African women both at home and in diaspora. She told me that in Ghana the gender ratio is 7 women to 1 man and this is basically reflected across the board in Africa considering the large numbers of young men migrating both to the urban areas and abroad. She is of the opinion that the basic fabric of African society is disintegrating along side this trend of Western individualism and the tendency not to see the bigger picture amongst our people. If we add aids, the shorting male life span in Africa, diseases and of course the large numbers of young men killed by civil war, ‘accidental discharge’, armed robbers, ‘cult’ activities and the typical up-to-no-good-in-da-hood urban contemporary gangstarism, it is not hard to see there is a crisis. Lets not forget that in Nigeria for example the majority of the notorious ‘awaiting trial’ cell dwellers, hustlers and contract killers are men.

So with this constant depletion of the male specie in our communities it is easy or perhaps seductive to see the case for polygamy. If you then consider the fact that brothers are doing it anyway via the back door with the emergence of ‘baby’s mamas’ (I know a few brothers with about 5 different babies mamas – some are open, others are on the ‘down low’.) But to be frank I am personally scared of polygamy because some sisters are stress factories (a beg sisters no vex o!), coupled with the fact that two women ganging up on a brother is quite frightening but the sight of all these sisters on their own, struggling with three kids fathered by ‘playaz’ can be disheartening.

Festus

[aq]

Alright..I like this topic,
First off sir Festus, i have to commend you on the way you ended your discussion with compassion right after pointing out a flaw with \"sisters\", just kidding.   this is a good argument though I just don\'t see that as a solution.  Y? Because, most of the time men play around with women they would never consider marrying in the first place, it\'s all about \"that thing\" like Lauryn Hill stated, and that is it.  Most of these men with \"baby mamas\" are unmarried, so let\'s look at them first.  These are men who are either not ready to get married or just don\'t want the hassles that come with being married.  This actually defeats the argument that they should marry more than one wife, since they can\'t even marry just one.
 
As per the issue concerning married men, and yea especially Nigerian men.  I say Nigerian men, because I cannot speak for other men. but from what i see, Nigerian men who are married tend to see marriage as just a status thing, something they have to do just because.  Before you respond to this last statement, please remember that i am not saying that nigerian women don\'t feel the same way, i am just talking about the men at this moment.  
I don\'t think the solution here polygamy. You can\'t say that there is a shortage of Nigerian men.  AIDS is not something that only affects men, and women are more likely to get infected than men so that cuts it out.  There might be many men in prison, but that doesn\'t mean that there is a lack of men.  

There is no constant depletion of men in the society...maybe due to lack of jobs and the economy, there are not enough \"husband material\" men for women to choose from, but to say that men are lacking...I just have to say come on.  It is like you have created an excuse for these men to continue their inconsiderate behavior by the illusion that if every man has 3 or 4 wives, then there would be no \"baby mamas\".  Come on na....

That is so besides the point.  What should be discussed is how to get these married men to stop chasing anything that wears a skirt.  African men need to start dealing with marital problems, and stop treating it as something that will pass.  To most africans, marriage is just a word, not a commitment and that\'s why there are so many baby mamas.  Polygamy won\'t stop this, maybe if there was another reason...you know what..scrap that...never polygamy.

Personally, polygamy is not for me, maybe for others...and divorce is a more acceptable idea than polygamy...but i\'m just speaking for myself.

So to answer your quesn..No,  African should not return to polygamy, but rather should try and work on some of it\'s internal issues to try and rectify the problem.  Both the married and unmarried playas need to start using their brain and start practicing safe sex...because apparently they didn\'t really learn about the birds and the bees.    

what\'s your take?

[Anonymous]

aq,

Sorry for the late reply, this is my busiest time of the year. First I want to reply specifically to some of the issues you raised. With regards to men, ‘that thing’ and the reluctance to ‘settle’ – which according to you ‘defeats the argument that they should marry more than one wife, since they can\'t even marry just one.’ Polygamy counteracts all the above problems you raised by linking sexual variety to responsibility so basically ‘that thing’ is a no go area unless you are willing to marry it. The point is that the convenient and schizophrenic separation of the person and their sexuality is impossible under a system of polygamy. This encourages the kind of self-restraint you can never find in the culture of serial monogamy, which kind of imposes the commodity logic of ‘planned obsolescence’ on women. So, I believe that ideally the reverse is actually the case. As per the issue of ratio in terms of numbers everybody who is interested in the demographics of Africa knows that there are more women compared to men, this is even the case globally. The question you should ask is, are there ‘babies mamas’ in polygamous societies? The answer is a resounding hell no – the reason is obvious. ‘Babies mamas’ are mainly the result of this illusion of the monad Reaganite individual who lacks any sense of the social consequences of their action. Polygamy is usually practised in more egalitarian, communitarian and socially cohesive cultures.

But any way, even in polygamous societies not everyone is polygamous besides, the important thing is not the convenience or short-term preferences and whims of a single individual but the social problems connected to children produced outside any family structure. I believe what the Ghanaian woman was on about is that when ‘that thing’ was linked to responsibility it forced people to think hard before ‘taking the plunge’. But in an individualistic self-serving society people can be about ‘that thing’ with no sense of responsibility so there is nothing holding them back. I do not see what aids and safe sex have to do with this since the same rule applies whether in monogamous or polygamous societies. Look at it this way, that very thing which scares you and me about polygamy is the biggest safe sex of all because it is not imposed externally.

[Anonymous]

Hey whassup,

Alright in response to your last post.....but first are u an accountant? Being as you are very busy during this time of the year.  

moving on, about the polygamy thing,

first you said \"Polygamy counteracts all the above problems you raised by linking sexual variety to responsibility so basically ?that thing? is a no go area unless you are willing to marry it\"

This argument can be debunked by a mere sentence, resolving to polygamy will in no way bestow a sense of responsibility on individuals.
There is no connection, Africans do not give away free brides, and getting a woman pregnant does not equal marriage.  I mean even in the northern part of Nigeria where sharia law is in effect and where polygamy is still ongoing, when a woman gets pregnant before marriage, she is sentenced to death rather than forcing the guy to marry her.  I know this is a stretch, but polygamy does not mean more responsibility and would not encourage self-restrain, there is no evidence to support that.


You said \"As per the issue of ratio in terms of numbers everybody who is interested in the demographics of Africa knows that there are more women compared to men, this is even the case globally.\"

If you re-read my post, I was disagreeing with your statement that this was because men are dying due to AIDS and what not.

You said \" The question you should ask is, are there ?babies mamas? in polygamous societies? The answer is a resounding hell no ? the reason is obvious. ?Babies mamas? are mainly the result of this illusion of the monad Reaganite individual who lacks any sense of the social consequences of their action. Polygamy is usually practised in more egalitarian, communitarian and socially cohesive cultures.\"

Are there baby mamas in polygamous societies?  In the past many African societies were deeply governed by religion, and if you look at Muslim societies for example.  Nowadays, people have sex anywhere and anytime.  Just because you tell somebody you can marry more than one wife does not mean that they will stop having sex with anybody that is not there wife.   People engage in sexual activities today than in the past, and I don\'t see how polygamy is a solution to this problem.

You said \"But in an individualistic self-serving society people can be about ?that thing? with no sense of responsibility so there is nothing holding them back.\"

What exactly is holding them back?  The fact that they can marry more than one wife??  Come on now, that is ridiculous, if you tell a guy he can marry more than one wife, I don\'t see him interpreting that as If I sleep with a woman, I will have to marry her, or I can only sleep with a woman who happens to be my wife.


You Said  \" I do not see what aids and safe sex have to do with this since the same rule applies whether in monogamous or polygamous societies.\"

AIDS and Safe sex has everything to do with \"Baby Mamas,\"  I mean isn\'t that where you are basing your solution from?  As I understand it, you are stating that the application or rather re-instating of polygamy will reduce the problem of baby mamas.  Teaching people about the effects and causes of AIDS and promoting safe sex will also decrease baby mamas, because there would no kids to mama over.


You said \"Look at it this way, that very thing which scares you and me about polygamy is the biggest safe sex of all because it is not imposed externally.\"

\"the biggest safe sex?\" I have one thing to say-----> WHAT??  No, what deters me from polygamy is the idea that I have to share my man/husband with another woman, while he is allowed to get all of me.  
That is a big no no in my book.  I\'d rather stay unmarried.

Talk to you later...I believe this is still Sir Festus..

[aq]

Forgot to put my name above...still aq...

[uapo4]

Interesting, I was thinking that I won\'t really have to post a reply, but I couldn\'t resist.  Before I move on, Sir Festus, AQ, fellow old boys of GSSO, and GSSO friends, I salute!

Now, here\'s my little contribution: \"Since when did marriage become all about sex?\"  Come on guys, let\'s put things in perspective here.  There\'s a whole lot to marriage than the mere act of sex.  With that being said, a good family is one that can live together in harmony and bring up the kids the BEST way they CAN.  You can\'t just produce babies and leave them to go and sell groundnut or pure water to make a living.

In Nigeria, for instance, life is hard enough for many monogamous families to make a good living not to think of putting up a \"free\" polygamous families.  Who is going to raise the children?  Parents are already having headaches trying to give their best to kids of five, six etc.  Bringing up polygamy can make some people marry 30 wives and have up to 100  children.  In such a situation, though I\'m exaggerating a bit here, you won\'t be able to even use the restroom.  Everytime,  one kid will be there asking \"let me finish! :lol: \".  Basically, what I am trying to say here is that marriage, which gives rise to a family, has a WHOLE LOT to do that\'s beyond sex.  And yes, I kind of agree with AQ\'s view that polygamy will not remove \"baby mamas\".  We, men, have a tendency to get caught looking if you know what I mean.  It\'s the way you train and discipline yourself (and pray obviously if you are a believer) that makes you avoid such occasions.  A man who is drunk or depressed could easily get himself to do the act of creating baby mamas.  A man is easily aroused sexually...that\'s a scientific fact unfortunately, but it is not the doom.  It\'s a matter of how one goes about it.

So if a man controls himself, there won\'t be need to go around chasing women and having more \"wives\".  It is extremely difficult to love and show your love to two different persons equally.  There will be a preference one way or the other, and a wife won\'t like not to be treated as the \"first\" wife or the \"true\" sweetheart.  There are a number of things I could add, but I\'ll wait.  I\'ll be checking this forum for more things to discuss if anyone has a valid reasonable argument against what I just said.  Ciao!

[Anony]

just when you think you\'ve had enough, here comes a shocking, rage-arousing brain-stunner: [read only if you are mentally strong and stable]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3492482.stm

[aq]

Uapo4, we are not saying that marriage is all about sex, the argument itself is based on sexuality, restraint and solution.  The word \"Baby Mama\" implies that there is no marriage involved, just the inablility of people to either restrain or take precaution to avoid pregnancy without the occurence of marriage.  In order to argue that polygamy will help solve the problem of \"Baby Mamas,\" we have to put out how \"Baby Mamas\" are created, and it is through sex, not marriage.
Hope this clarifies your question.

[q]

That BBC story is really depressing...don\'t know what to say, and really hate thinking about it.

[Anonymous]

Guys Ndewo,


First, I am not an accountant Aq, I am just an ordinary academic and like I said this is the busiest time of the year for me before the summer hols, when I will have the time to settle down for some serious ‘njakiri’ and debates. Before I go on Aq, let me say that you completely misunderstood both my arguments and the context inside which those arguments are situated. So, once again Aq’s let me clarify my position. Remember that I posted this thread because of a discussion I had with an old Ghanaian woman who in fact knows more about ‘traditional’ African life than you and I and her main point is that the disintegration of the African family unit is mainly linked to the disintegration of those ‘binding’ mechanisms which ensured the cohesiveness of traditional African life. One of those ‘binding’ mechanism is polygamy.

Now, the problem with your logic is that it is too narrow, selective and lacks any real focus, let me explain. Marriage in African (not Islamic or Judeo-Christian) tradition is a social engagement not a personal one so; the link between sexual variety and responsibility is ensured through the strict adherence to social norm. The simple evidence or proof for this like I pointed out to you before is well documented in all kinds of anthropological evidence (see the UNESCO book ‘cultural patterns and technical change’ by M. Mead) Even the Islamic cultural code you used as an example of the ‘debunking’ of my arguments actually serves my argument more because in any Islamic society, the ‘baby’s mama’ culture is the exception not the rule. This linking of personal conduct and social responsibility is the corner stone of the African culture.

Aq, the idea that people engaged in more sexual activities today than in the past is a modern myth (if you need proof gimme a shout or realize that the Kama Sutra is 2000 year old). The difference is that today, people are indiscriminate because of the downsizing of the sort of acute sense of consequence people used to have due to family and kingship. You seem to think that polygamy is only about marrying more than one wife; polygamy is more about an inclusive way of organizing a society and reproduction both of the human species and cultural forms of a given society. Anybody old enough in this forum can remember when in Owerri for example if you impregnate a girl you will definitely marry her whatever your preference, even I witnessed that one. It follows therefore that it is the delinking of sex and marriage or the consequences of sexual activity and family structure that is the problem.

Do bear in mind that African societies and most other societies including the Jews have been practicing polygamy for about 10,000 years, how come aids made its appearance only when monogamy and individual preference appeared on the scene. When you say you do not want to ‘share’ you are basically echoing what is generally known as the ‘protestant ethic’ of individual moral responsibility, which if you really think about it, is behind not only the high levels of divorce and hence (baby’s mama –ism) but also promotes this modern illusion that personal convenience, preference and ‘choice’ should be at the centre of social interaction.

Uapo4, point taken I will respond soon.

Take care you guys

Festus

[uapo4]

I am waiting.   :wink:

[aq]

I changed my mind. I think they should go back to polygamy. It\'s the way to go!!

[festus]

uapo4,

I promised you a response and you also invited me or indeed ?anyone? with a ?valid? argument against your assertions to come forwards so, I am going to do just that. Before I do let me clarify a few things ? I am going to say a few ?controversial? things which I intend to back up. My intention is not to upset anyone or belittle anybody or even win an argument; I just like to stimulate thinking and try to encourage those who are willing to think outside the ?box?. I believe that our collective ?salvation? as a people depends on this. Any how, I will begin by counteracting your first argument which says ?since when did marriage become all about sex?. The fact is that sex precedes marriage, if you need proof look at the natural world and also the fact is that human beings are conceived through sex not marriage so, sex must have happened before marriage. Now, the word ?marriage? in the Judaeo-Christian tradition basically refers to a formalisation of a sexual union between a man and a woman. This is basically why marriage in conventional Christian belief is organised around the idea of the sanctioning of sexual activity i.e. matrimony is the only type of union where sex is allowed or ?legitimate?.

If you read the book on the history of sexuality by Michel Foucault you will see that sex lies at the core of every form of social and moral control and it is mostly on the control of sexuality that most societies build up micro organising frameworks like marriage and rituals of courtship. So yes marriage indeed is about sex, but that is not to say that sex is the only thing that comes into play. If you know the significance of sex you will agree with me that without sexuality there will be no such thing as marriage because there will be no need for it. In fact I will go as far as saying (and this is well supported by empirical evidence not ?belief?) that sex even lies at the root of religion and metaphysics. The oldest religions are very sexual religions. Hinduism is a very good example and it is much older than Christianity, Judaism, Islam and even Buddhism. To put it simply the oldest religions are ?fertility? religions organised around the reification of sex. I am not saying that sex should be taken lightly in fact I am making the opposite argument that it is the significance of sex that puts it squarely at the heart of not only reproduction but cultural relationships like marriage.

When I read through your post, I got the feeling that you are conflating a lot of things (correct me if am wrong). The poverty in Nigeria is not because of polygamy or over population neither is it because of lack of control. The poverty in Nigeria is because of historical and geopolitical reasons which I have no time to get into here. The reason you are conflating these issues is because you like most of us Africans associate our plight with the lack of Western values whether secular or religious. I want to debunk this view because it is ingrained in our colonial conditioned mind. Consider these facts, the whole of Western Europe is only the size of the democratic republic of Congo but 400 million people live in that small space. The whole of African is about 800 million not even the population of China or India. Do you know how many people live per square mile in Japan, Hong Kong or Singapore? We are not poor because there are too many of us. Remember that the same people who sold us the idea of ?monogamy? and ?population control? are also the same people that enslaved, colonised us and ?trained? our so called leaders who are running very rich countries like Nigeria to the ground.

Any how, it is not marriage that ?gives rise to a family? since marriage does not produce offspring but sex does. Family cannot exist without people and people cannot reproduce without having sex. Marriage is then a way to organise reproduction both biologically and culturally with a view of perpetuating the species. There is no one way to organise a family, different cultures have devised different ways to organise themselves according to their own cultural orientation. Polygamy may not be perfect but it is inclusive and very suitable for some circumstances and since it does not prevent people from practicing monogamy I do not see any sensible reason why it cannot be considered. To be honest with you the ?monogamy? that most people talk about is a myth, what exists in the real world in Western society is ?serial monogamy? and this is precisely what produces ?babies mamas?. The reason is obvious, since you can only marry one the others become relegated not to ?second? wife but a situation of no marital status ? ?babies mamas? and her children (born through the same biological process as the children of the ?legitimate? wife) become ?bastards?. In America today there is something called ?poly fidelity?, while not as effective as polygamy, it is gaining popularity in Western countries. So even in the West ?monogamy? is not the standard, it is increasingly becoming the ?ideal? instead of the real.

If we could shrink the earth\'s population to a village of precisely100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following: There would be:

57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south
8 Africans
52 would be female
48 would be male
70 would be non-white
30 would be white
70 would be non-Christian
30 would be Christian
89 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual
6 people would possess 59% of the entire world\'s wealth and all
6 would be from the United States.
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth
1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education
1 would own a computer  


\"Let\'s think outside the box.\"

Festus

[festus]

uapo4,

I promised you a response and you also invited me or indeed ?anyone? with a ?valid? argument against your assertions to come forwards so, I am going to do just that. Before I do let me clarify a few things ? I am going to say a few ?controversial? things which I intend to back up. My intention is not to upset anyone or belittle anybody or even win an argument; I just like to stimulate thinking and try to encourage those who are willing to think outside the ?box?. I believe that our collective ?salvation? as a people depends on this. Any how, I will begin by counteracting your first argument which says ?since when did marriage become all about sex?. The fact is that sex precedes marriage, if you need proof look at the natural world and also the fact is that human beings are conceived through sex not marriage so, sex must have happened before marriage. Now, the word ?marriage? in the Judaeo-Christian tradition basically refers to a formalisation of a sexual union between a man and a woman. This is basically why marriage in conventional Christian belief is organised around the idea of the sanctioning of sexual activity i.e. matrimony is the only type of union where sex is allowed or ?legitimate?.

If you read the book on the history of sexuality by Michel Foucault you will see that sex lies at the core of every form of social and moral control and it is mostly on the control of sexuality that most societies build up micro organising frameworks like marriage and rituals of courtship. So yes marriage indeed is about sex, but that is not to say that sex is the only thing that comes into play. If you know the significance of sex you will agree with me that without sexuality there will be no such thing as marriage because there will be no need for it. In fact I will go as far as saying (and this is well supported by empirical evidence not ?belief?) that sex even lies at the root of religion and metaphysics. The oldest religions are very sexual religions. Hinduism is a very good example and it is much older than Christianity, Judaism, Islam and even Buddhism. To put it simply the oldest religions are ?fertility? religions organised around the reification of sex. I am not saying that sex should be taken lightly in fact I am making the opposite argument that it is the significance of sex that puts it squarely at the heart of not only reproduction but cultural relationships like marriage.

When I read through your post, I got the feeling that you are conflating a lot of things (correct me if am wrong). The poverty in Nigeria is not because of polygamy or over population neither is it because of lack of control. The poverty in Nigeria is because of historical and geopolitical reasons which I have no time to get into here. The reason you are conflating these issues is because you like most of us Africans associate our plight with the lack of Western values whether secular or religious. I want to debunk this view because it is ingrained in our colonial conditioned mind. Consider these facts, the whole of Western Europe is only the size of the democratic republic of Congo but 400 million people live in that small space. The whole of African is about 800 million not even the population of China or India. Do you know how many people live per square mile in Japan, Hong Kong or Singapore? We are not poor because there are too many of us. Remember that the same people who sold us the idea of ?monogamy? and ?population control? are also the same people that enslaved, colonised us and ?trained? our so called leaders who are running very rich countries like Nigeria to the ground.

Any how, it is not marriage that ?gives rise to a family? since marriage does not produce offspring but sex does. Family cannot exist without people and people cannot reproduce without having sex. Marriage is then a way to organise reproduction both biologically and culturally with a view of perpetuating the species. There is no one way to organise a family, different cultures have devised different ways to organise themselves according to their own cultural orientation. Polygamy may not be perfect but it is inclusive and very suitable for some circumstances and since it does not prevent people from practicing monogamy I do not see any sensible reason why it cannot be considered. To be honest with you the ?monogamy? that most people talk about is a myth, what exists in the real world in Western society is ?serial monogamy? and this is precisely what produces ?babies mamas?. The reason is obvious, since you can only marry one the others become relegated not to ?second? wife but a situation of no marital status ? ?babies mamas? and her children (born through the same biological process as the children of the ?legitimate? wife) become ?bastards?. In America today there is something called ?poly fidelity?, while not as effective as polygamy, it is gaining popularity in Western countries. So even in the West ?monogamy? is not the standard, it is increasingly becoming the ?ideal? instead of the real.

If we could shrink the earth\'s population to a village of precisely100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following: There would be:

57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south
8 Africans
52 would be female
48 would be male
70 would be non-white
30 would be white
70 would be non-Christian
30 would be Christian
89 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual
6 people would possess 59% of the entire world\'s wealth and all
6 would be from the United States.
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth
1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education
1 would own a computer  


\"Let\'s think outside the box.\"

Festus

[uapo4]

I will finish your reading your posts later.  It is quite long to finish in a short duration, but I just wanted to point something out before I go on.  My very first statement you quoted was \"Since when did marriage be ALL about sex\" and I put the word \"ALL\" in capital letters because you repeated my line when you said \"marriage is about sex but this is not to say that sex is the only...\"  Can you see my point?
Anyway, I will continue reading to the end of your posts later...a big thing has happened in my life now and I pray for God\'s grace (don\'t worry, I\'m sounding ambiguous for a reason)