I wonder if it is actually true. I know polygamy was existed in ancient times, but always assumed that like homosexuality it was something limited to the upper class. I cannot imagine that the average subsistence farmer in Europe/Asia feudal society or hunter gatherers in Africa/America’s could afford the luxury of a second wife. Even in the Muslim world, far as I know it was strictly something rich people do. I guess a society where man are routinely butchered in combat could be pressured to adopt this.
Wow, some atrocious spelling in that one...
In the absence of massive warfare, which results in a preponderance of women, or sex-selection abortion/infanticide (common these days), which results in more men, nature tends to balance the sexes, numerically.
If one man has two wives (absent warfare), one man has none. If one man has thirty wives, twenty-nine have none. In the bad old pre-sanitation days, women died in childbirth a lot, too. That cut the supply even more.
think more of the biggest strongest warrior taking any woman he wants, and you will see how polygamy was probably the norm for most of history.
As for homosexuality, I believe it has always been practiced by anyone strong enough to overcome or entice (bribe) someone smaller and weaker.The wealthy indulged it more because, as ever, they could afford excess in whims, pleasures, etc.
That was and still is a tribal way of life in many cultures. There is one (or more) Asian cultures where women take more than one husband. Perhaps it is economic and it takes more than one to provide for a family.
The Biblical order for us is that a man take a woman and the "two become one flesh". The modern version is the "two become one flesh" until someone decides that 3 or more become one flesh, which pretty much dilutes the equation; decides to split, or just goes off "to find himself or herself."
vaudine