Really considerate of them
to ruin somebody else's marriage before it had properly begun
A Pakistani polygamist copped a righteous shoeing from two of his three known wives, who alleged that he'd already had a clandestine fourth other half and was planning to tie the knot for a fifth time. Mian Ishaq of Gujranwala, Punjab province, was at a friend's wedding reception with wife number three, Fauzia, when estranged …
to ruin somebody else's marriage before it had properly begun
It's called "saving them the time and energy of ruining it themselves".
provided he is well-heeled.
Well that is a common mis perception that four wives are allowed under Sharia law when it is not (without fulfilling all the required conditions). More than one wife is allowed when there is a genuine reason, you are marrying again to help the woman, first wife give you permission, you can fulfill their rights 100% equally and a whole load of conditions which most people even don't understand or don't bother to understand.
...they didn't have stiletto heels.
Why the heck would you want 5 wives... One is too many.
*beer, making marriage possible since it was invented.
I was once informed by someone older (and possibly wiser) than I that the only good number of wives is either none or enough that no one would notice one less than what you have. Any state in between is unacceptable.
As Les Dawson once said: "Take my wife. Please ..... take her!"
The accused is a masochist.
Why would a man *willingly* take on such a large amount of "trouble and strife"?
Must be the heat...it's addled his brain.
Maybe the shoes will knock some sense into him.
It's common here in Asia to hit the devil or bad person with shoes or broom. So yes, this is hilarious, makes me laugh out loud.
Men, they follow what they think can suit or that they can benefit from, rather than doing everything Islamic. The reason to marry in helping the woman simply does not exist. Even if they do, I still think men are just thinking with their other heads!! Yikes...
One wife is trouble enough. Two is a bit daft. Three is near self-destructive.
Surely, no-one is insane enough to want more than three. The law's there for a reason - it's health'n'safety, dammit!
I guess the blame games afoot, then...
Ahem. I'll get me coat ;-)
Why would you want more than one spouse ? It's just greedy and insane.
If adultery is taboo and polygamy is available, then taking several wives satisfies a desire for variety.
It wouldn't be my choice (too much work), but it's not like it's an alien point of view.
The more wives you have the more sons* you are likely to be able to produce, and so your family's power in the tribe will grow and your DNA will be passed on more times.
*daughters too, of course, but they're largely a waste of resources as they can't work and will end up costing the family.
What is wrong with some people? Life is hard and complicated enough already without making it even harder! I have a wife and a daughter, a female cat and a female hamster, 4 "women" under the same roof is punishment enough for me!
* Anonymous for good reason! *
You wait until you get home. You're in the dog house now. Oh, we have a new pet a nice little female puppy
in most cases of polygamy, the wives don't all live under one roof.... each wife has a different residence (which is why you need to be well off) and Hubby spends time with each wife.
I'm guessing there would be some competition from the wives for their husbands time and resources so I expect he can usually expect a warm welcome from at least one of his wives, so generally the "trouble and strife" would balance out.
Of course this story shows what happens when the wives start working together to gang up on the husband...
Me personally, I'll stick with just the one wife.
Should have been able to show a clean pair of heels then shouldn't he?
If a woman was caught doing the multiplicity marriage thingy... the crowd now would replace shoes with stones? And the local police would be transporting the stones to the scene?
... putting the boot in !
(and really, why would ANYone want five mothers-in-law?!)
"Why the heck would you want 5 wives... One is too many."
More to the point, 5 mothers in law? The bloke must be a nutcase.
I fancy some peanut butter on toast. Go on, run a story on that.
As long as you use that internet connected toaster that toasts today's weather forecast into the toast.
If the population is generally 50/50 ratio of men to women, and then a few men go out and get many wives, doesn't that screw up the dating/marriage ratio?
Every man that has 4 wives also in effect creates 3 bachelors?
1- the ratio of men to women is not 50/50, as far as I know, in many countries there are more women then men ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio ). (note, you are also assuming that all of those men are *cough* straight!). Note that the table doesn't show you the population of each country, I am not sure what would the ratio be if you try to look at the world as a whole.
2- not _every_ man marry more then 1 wife, I lived in the middle east and now living in Africa, and in all those years I only knew 2 men in the middle east who had more then 1 wife and I only know 3 men in Africa who have more then 1 wife. The others, that I know, are only married to 1 wife (if married).
That would solve it.
Or a wife have a few husbands?
I was informed once by a Muslim activist that there is a conspiracy by the UN and so forth to misreport the ratio of the sexes in order to discredit Islamic law. He claimed that the real ratio was around 3:1 in favour of women.
I kid you not.
to go blow up The Great Satan.
And pray, what is the IT angle in this story? No sign of PARIS either
You must be a blind idiot not to see the direct correlation to designing an application that combines hardware and software by utilising resources correctly - and that grabbing too much resources is inherantly dangerous.
It is a perfect analogy for those dumbtards that run multiple Oracle database instances on a single server, imagining that this is somehow better and more scalable.
who had 2 wives (in Kenya) - it sounded like a nightmare. There was one his age (middle-aged) & a younger one. Apparently they had ganged up on him & he was permanently in the doghouse.
I hate to boil things down to maths like this but in terms of social survival women are far more valuable than men, a man can get a woman up the spout in half an hour while a woman takes 9 months to have a baby. Thus if you put the men in the dangerous positions you aren't affecting your birth rate as much as if women are put in danger.
The upshot of this is that you would end up with more women than men. Perhaps even the women would only marry men who have already made a name for themselves, thus reducing the chances their husband will get killed on them but also meaning the number of marriable men is reduced. Bingo, you now have a relatively small number of men with three or four wives each.
It isn't that a woman isn't fully a man's equal in terms of competence, it is just that when primitive cultures lose women their birth rate and thus their ability to survive from one century to the next is diminished. Quite how that ended up with men being socially "dominant" hell knows but such is humanity.
Good on you my son!
Cigarette and cuppa included, I presume?
Just blimey !
I recall the sage advice of Ray Davies, who opined that "Two girls are too many, three's a crowd, and four - you're dead."
...be it noted that "Take my wife - please!" was not said by Les Dawson, but by Henny Youngman.
Is this a belated response to "U-571"?
<sigh> And the forum name is?