Quote Originally Posted by Punish_her View Post
well that's just a crock of shit. contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage. not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time
Which generally means leaving her family, too. ANY sanctions constitute coercion, you know. Telling a young girl that she's free to go out on her own if she doesn't want to do as she's told is no different than threatening her with stoning. It's one of the 'features' of religious training.

(furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself)
I know the Amish do something like this, but I wasn't aware that the Mormons also did it. But again, having to give up everything you've ever known, your church, your family, your friends, in order to have some freedom of choice in who you marry is still coercion.

we are a historically polygamous psecies, geneticists have shown we are decided from 2 to three times as many women as men. think about it in these terms:
Well, considering that many cultures practiced polygamy, and even those who didn't sometimes allowed rulers the right to bed women on their wedding nights, it's not a surprising finding. You also have to take into account the idea that even in supposedly monogamous societies, men tended to 'spread the wealth'. An ancient Roman man would only have one wife, who would bear his heirs and keep his house, but he would generally have at least one mistress, more if he could afford it, to see to his sexual needs. And even when it is not culturally acceptable, men tend to make use of mistresses and prostitutes. Not too surprising that there would be more female lines of descent than male, then.

would the average woman want to be ryan reynald's third wife? or john smiths first and only wife?
A bigger question might be whether someone like Ryan Reynolds would accept an 'average' woman as ANY wife? Having fame (though I admit, I had to look him up, and I still don't recognize him) and wealth, he is able to get almost any women he wants. Why would he settle for less than perfection? But there are plenty of women who would rather have the stability of a John Smith than have to play second or third fiddle.

Yes, there is an obvious genetic benefit to having more than one wife, providing you can care for all of them, and all of the children. The benefits of having more than one husband can be great as well, though not as genetically beneficial. In a culture where the men are considered providers, having more than one such provider would be of immense benefit to wife and children. Why don't we see more people pushing for wives with multiple husbands, then? Or households with multiple wives AND husbands?

Primarily because we men don't like to share our property. And, historically, women have always been considered property. In many parts of the world, they still are. And denying them the right to choose their own health care, to choose whether or not to have children, is little more than telling them that they are still property, even in an 'enlightened' society like ours.