Interesting. I've been toying around with the idea that there are two different kinds of polygyny, let's call them "lion polygyny" and "sultan polygyny".
In lion polygyny the females contribute most of the resources and the male spends his time defending his harem against other males. In sultan polygyny the male contributes most of the resources. Notice that sultan polygyny requires the man to be able to contribute more resources than all his wives combined could do on their own. Since humans aren't that sexually dimorphic, this is only possible if the man in question sits at or near the top of a massive power structure. This is probably also why there don't appear to be any examples of sultan polygyny in the animal kingdom.
Interesting, but some surprising results. I would expect high female subsistence contribution to favour polygamy given free marriage choice as it allows women to 'share the burden' (and conversely, where women contribute little you might expect them not to want to share the man's contribution with other wives). Have I misunderstood the subsistence contribution variable, or missed something else important?
Welcome back
Interesting. I've been toying around with the idea that there are two different kinds of polygyny, let's call them "lion polygyny" and "sultan polygyny".
In lion polygyny the females contribute most of the resources and the male spends his time defending his harem against other males. In sultan polygyny the male contributes most of the resources. Notice that sultan polygyny requires the man to be able to contribute more resources than all his wives combined could do on their own. Since humans aren't that sexually dimorphic, this is only possible if the man in question sits at or near the top of a massive power structure. This is probably also why there don't appear to be any examples of sultan polygyny in the animal kingdom.
Interesting, but some surprising results. I would expect high female subsistence contribution to favour polygamy given free marriage choice as it allows women to 'share the burden' (and conversely, where women contribute little you might expect them not to want to share the man's contribution with other wives). Have I misunderstood the subsistence contribution variable, or missed something else important?