Economic professor suggest sharing wives to curb growing problem of too many single men in China - Polidicks

[QUOTE]That’s the solution to China’s huge surplus of single men, says Prof Xie Zuoshi, an economics professor at the Zhejing University of Finance and Economics, whose recent proposal to allow polyandry has gone viral. Legalising marriage between two men would also be a good idea, Prof Xie wrote in a post that has since been removed from his blogs. (He has at least three blogs, and his Sina blog alone has more than 2.6 million followers.) By 2020, China will have an estimated 30 million bachelors — called guanggun, or “bare branches”. Birth control policies that since 1979 have limited many families to one child, a cultural preference for boys and the widespread, if illegal, practice of sex-selective abortion have contributed to a gender imbalance that hovers around 117 boys born for every 100 girls. Though some could perhaps detect a touch of Jonathan Swift in the proposal, Prof Xie wrote that he was approaching the problem from a purely economic point of view. Many men, especially poor ones, he noted, are unable to find a wife and have children, and are condemned to living and dying without offspring to support them in old age, as children are required to do by law in China. But he believes there is a solution. A shortage raises the price of goods — in this case, women, he explained. Rich men can afford them, but poor men are priced out. This can be solved by having two men share the same woman. “With so many guanggun, women are in short supply and their value increases,” he wrote. “But that doesn’t mean the market can’t be adjusted. The guanggun problem is actually a problem of income. High-income men can find a woman because they can pay a higher price. What about low-income men? One solution is to have several take a wife together.” He added: “That’s not just my weird idea. In some remote, poor places, brothers already marry the same woman, and they have a full and happy life.” Polyandry has been practiced before in China, particularly in impoverished areas, as a way to pool resources and avoid the breakup of property. Yet much of the online response to Xie’s proposal has been outrage. “Is this a human being speaking?” a user with the handle dihuihui wrote on Weibo. “Trash-talking professor, many single guys want to ask, ‘Where’s your wife?’” a user who identified as Shanyu jinxiang1887003537 wrote.[/QUOTE] [url]http://m.todayonline.com/chinaindia/china/bachelor-glut-china-leads-proposal-share-wives[/url]

Traditional marriage is so utilitarian and soulless...

how the fuck would this work why would some women agree to this,.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;48991578]how the fuck would this work why would some women agree to this,.[/QUOTE] money

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;48991578]how the fuck would this work why would some women agree to this,.[/QUOTE] Not everyone views it as 1+1. Nothing wrong with having multiple partners if everyone is on the same page. This whole idea of marriage between a man and a women comes from religion. We were never designed with that in mind anyways. As well as it really shouldn't be illegal to be with more than one person. Works out great if most people are happy.

How about your country ends your fucking third-world level gender discrimination problem instead of exacerbating it by actually wanting to have girls for children now that there's a huge gender gap.

[QUOTE=DELL;48991629]Not everyone views it as 1+1. Nothing wrong with having multiple partners if everyone is on the same page. This whole idea of marriage between a man and a women comes from religion. We were never designed with that in mind anyways. As well as it really shouldn't be illegal to be with more than one person. Works out great if most people are happy.[/QUOTE] Like most things, the issue in changing it ultimately comes down the cost of drafting new laws and amending old laws. That's after the prohibitative and prolonged social discourse on the topic.

[QUOTE=DELL;48991629]Not everyone views it as 1+1. Nothing wrong with having multiple partners if everyone is on the same page. This whole idea of marriage between a man and a women comes from religion. We were never designed with that in mind anyways. As well as it really shouldn't be illegal to be with more than one person. Works out great if most people are happy.[/QUOTE] I've heard that in hunter gatherer days they may have shared women too and perhaps didn't quite understand the concept of sex as well as we do, and because of this they wouldn't know for sure who the father is so the whole tribe would band together to raise these children. There's something nice about that idea, a tribe so close together they don't really care who's kid is who.

There are groups in Tibet where a wife can have 2 husbands (typically brothers) It would be a major shock to the system though

[QUOTE=Buck.;48991924]I've heard that in hunter gatherer days they may have shared women too and perhaps didn't quite understand the concept of sex as well as we do, and because of this they wouldn't know for sure who the father is so the whole tribe would band together to raise these children. There's something nice about that idea, a tribe so close together they don't really care who's kid is who.[/QUOTE]Sounds like a cuck dream come true. In no way am I sharing my wife or raising some else's kids. Not going to happen.

[QUOTE=DELL;48991629]Not everyone views it as 1+1. Nothing wrong with having multiple partners if everyone is on the same page. This whole idea of marriage between a man and a women comes from religion. We were never designed with that in mind anyways. As well as it really shouldn't be illegal to be with more than one person. Works out great if most people are happy.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to have multiple partners in most countries. What is illegal is to marry multiple people. And while yes, it may have started as a religious thing. Now days it would be a legal chaos if multiple people where to marry. Who gets what during a divorce? Who gets what if one partner dies? Imagine the legal nightmare to sort all of that out.

[QUOTE=Buck.;48991924]I've heard that in hunter gatherer days they may have shared women too and perhaps didn't quite understand the concept of sex as well as we do, and because of this they wouldn't know for sure who the father is so the whole tribe would band together to raise these children. There's something nice about that idea, a tribe so close together they don't really care who's kid is who.[/QUOTE] It would be usually imperative for the father to know which child was his, because otherwise he'd be wasting time on raising a child that wasn't his. Tribes usually raised the children together for more different reasons rather than because they didn't know the parentage.

[QUOTE=Buck.;48991924]I've heard that in hunter gatherer days they may have shared women too and perhaps didn't quite understand the concept of sex as well as we do, and because of this they wouldn't know for sure who the father is so the whole tribe would band together to raise these children. There's something nice about that idea, a tribe so close together they don't really care who's kid is who.[/QUOTE] You can't generalize the beliefs and practices of innumerable different tribes that existed for 190,000 years out of our 200,000 year existence. Even among "recent" native American hunter-gatherer tribes there were documented tribes that only had monogamous marriage and still others that practiced polygyny. In any case, evidence suggest that social monogamy historically has been the dominant practice: [quote]The reconstruction of low levels of polygyny in early humans is straightforward because high levels of polygyny for hunter-gatherers are only found in Australian Aborigines and are mostly low elsewhere (most exceptions are some New World foragers that are not in the phylogenetic analysis). Low levels of polygyny and low reproductive skew among ancestral humans are consistent with human morphology and behavior (i.e., moderate sperm counts and testicular size; facultative paternal investment) and the general decline in sexual dimorphism beginning at least with early Homo.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Buck.;48991924]I've heard that in hunter gatherer days they may have shared women too and perhaps didn't quite understand the concept of sex as well as we do, and because of this they wouldn't know for sure who the father is so the whole tribe would band together to raise these children. There's something nice about that idea, a tribe so close together they don't really care who's kid is who.[/QUOTE] Yeah until the kids end up with 6 fingers and webbed feet from generations of inbreeding.

[QUOTE=Chrille;48992043]You can't generalize the beliefs and practices of innumerable different tribes that existed for 190,000 years out of our 200,000 year existence. Even among "recent" native American hunter-gatherer tribes there were documented tribes that only had monogamous marriage and still others that practiced polygyny. In any case, evidence suggest that social monogamy historically has been the dominant practice:[/QUOTE] But I'm not generalising anything nor am I stating it as a fact. As words like "I've heard that.." "May have.." and "Perhaps.." should suggest. I'm no expert, I'm just suggesting that polygamy may have not been as taboo in the past as it is today. [QUOTE=draugur;48992075]Yeah until the kids end up with 6 fingers and webbed feet from generations of inbreeding.[/QUOTE] Not if you bring in women from other tribes? I thought that was a pretty common practice.

cuck state when

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48991944]Sounds like a cuck dream come true. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992399]cuck state when[/QUOTE] The way some people here shout 'CUCK' at anything other than a traditionally monogamous two-partner relationship is really tiring.

[QUOTE=catbarf;48992443]The way some people here shout 'CUCK' at anything other than a traditionally monogamous two-partner relationship is really tiring.[/QUOTE] i mean, i was fucking around but w/e i've never given a shit about monogamy personally

Reminds me of [url]http://www.nairaland.com/1231133/indian-woman-married-5-brothers[/url], but then less fucked up. It's still awkward imo.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48991944]Sounds like a cuck dream come true. In no way am I sharing my wife or raising some else's kids. Not going to happen.[/QUOTE] what an amazing post

[QUOTE=DELL;48991629]Not everyone views it as 1+1. Nothing wrong with having multiple partners if everyone is on the same page. This whole idea of marriage between a man and a women comes from religion. We were never designed with that in mind anyways. As well as it really shouldn't be illegal to be with more than one person. Works out great if most people are happy.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously advocating polygamy?

[QUOTE=Xystus234;49000225]Are you seriously advocating polygamy?[/QUOTE] If consenting adults agree to it, what is wrong with it? I don't think it's for me, but just since I don't like it, doesn't mean rational adults can't

[QUOTE=Xystus234;49000225]Are you seriously advocating polygamy?[/QUOTE] Like if people are forced into polygamy than it's obviously not a good thing. But if all of the people involved truthfully consent to a marriage between multiple partners then I don't really see an issue. Like I know both the traditional 2 person marriage and the 3+ person marriage both have roots, or at least have been preached, in varying religions, but somehow only the 2 person one made it through for common western moral values. The usual argument against it is that it is harmful for the sex that there are multiple of in the relationship, but if they agree to the marriage and all its terms up front with full knowledge of what life will be like, they probably will be happy in that situation seeing how they already thought it through. Even if they realize the polygamy life isn't what they wanted, they can always get a divorce from the rest of the group.

[QUOTE=Xystus234;49000225]Are you seriously advocating polygamy?[/QUOTE] You're gunna have to try and explain why you think it's bad for me

[QUOTE=kenji;49001594]You're gunna have to try and explain why you think it's bad for me[/QUOTE] Marriage is just a contract these days, and it would simply be a legal mess. Not to mention how divorces between two people can get nasty, imagine divorces between 3 or four people. Then how will they determine who gets the kids if they split ? Imagine your wife/husband leaves you and take your wife/husband and kids with them :v:

Why don't they just give into their repressed homosexual urges and fuck each other? I'm sure that'll keep at least half of them satisfied

Come here and give me a hug, potential son maybe.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;49000255]If consenting adults agree to it, what is wrong with it? I don't think it's for me, but just since I don't like it, doesn't mean rational adults can't[/QUOTE] While I firmly believe that polygamy/polyandry should be a basic human right, keep in mind that mostof the marriages throughout the world are not sealed in the name of mutual affection. This economist is arguing in favor of polyandry only, based on economic and demographic theory. He is arguing for a new familial archetype in which one woman has to carry the offspring of different men and be shared among them. While this may, to some, seem acceptable in China, it doesn't appear to make a very good case for non-monogamous marriage worldwide just for having polyandry stamped on it

I am waiting for people to start saying polygamy is misogynistic, popular in the arab world to have multiple wives at least.

[QUOTE=Vasili;49007549]I am waiting for people to start saying polygamy is misogynistic, popular in the arab world to have multiple wives at least.[/QUOTE] How is it misogynistic? In this case it's the woman who can choose to have multiple partners. If anything, that's empowering. It makes no sense to claim misogynous here by anyone.