(Sorry in advance, in a playful mood this morning)

I'm looking for solid empirical evidence on why I should have multiple wives.  Please provide any links/information so I can share with my woman.

For some reason she and I aren't on the same page about this...

One thing is when she gets pregnant she is only going to get pregnant once a year. Sometimes with twins or triplets but usually with only one child. But for you. It is possible for you to get a different woman pregnant everyday. Well, actually not that often because your sperm count will drop if you sleep with a different woman everyday.  But perhaps once a week.  But how many kids do you want?

Other benefits is she will have help with the house work.

However, she will want multiple husbands.   

(Sorry in advance, in a playful mood this morning)

I'm looking for solid empirical evidence on why I should have multiple wives.  Please provide any links/information so I can share with my woman.

For some reason she and I aren't on the same page about this...

Keeps you warm in winter.

Citation - http://www.ehow.com/how_6699680_huddle-warmth.html

How monogamy really works: http://www.pronatal.org/2011/06/05/how-monogamy-really-works-hard-truth/

ROFLMAO!!!!!  Gee, maybe I've been doing something wrong these past 17 years that makes my husband WANT to be monogamus . . .    I can definitely say the above link does NOT apply to every single monogamus relationship.  Maybe it's true for some . . . but certainly not all.

this brought another question to mind . . . I get what the link is saying about how families wouldn't consider a child by another woman (same father) THEIR child/grandchild/niece/nephew.  So then, I wonder how that does work in polygamy - is the wife allowed to "cheat" however discreetly?  If she's going the paleo way of sperm competition to get the best odds -  say she then has a child by another man.  Is the husband responsible for that child, or does it go to the biological father?  This has me curious . . . recent related article in this month's Discover magazine too . . .

Glad I don't have to deal with it . . . 

I have to admit to skepticism about the "women want sperm competition" thing.  Usually in polygynous animals, the females select the largest and strongest available mate, so why would they want to contaminate their samples with sperm from an inferior male?  This is true in gorillas, for example, where one male keeps a harem; male gorillas have tiny testes compared with their body size, indicating that there's virtually no sperm competition.

Chimps are an example of a species with a lot of sperm competition, and they have no pair bonding and their promiscuity is quite open.  The females do have sex with multiple males, but then they get a payment of food from each sexual partner, so it's not just sperm competition.

Human testes, by the way, are intermediate between chimps and gorillas, and comparable to gibbons, in size relative to body size.  Gibbons are also monogamous, suggesting that humans may also be naturally monogamous, although there could be other explanations.

It would be interesting to go back in time and see how our great-to-the-nth ancestors lived day to day.  I don't remember when we (as a species) made the connection between sex and pregnancy, but I'd guess in the paleolithic era they hadn't put that two and two together yet--so "who's the baby's father" wouldn't have been an issue, it would be the mother's baby, and the tribe's baby.  Did we still form pair bonds, staying attached to a partner even though we might have sex with someone else?  Or was it like our chimp cousins, where the boss chimp gets dibs on breeding females?  (One thing about human females, we really can't tell when we're fertile.)

You females may not be able to tell, but a former girlfriend once told me that I always wanted sex right when she ovulated, and not at other times, based on her calculations.  I wasn't tracking the timing consciously or anything, and we were both trying to avoid pregnancy anyway.  There must have been some subconscious cue that I could sense that she wasn't aware of.

We were at least as smart in the later paleolithic as we are now, so I suspect we were smart enough to make the connection between sex and children.  The babies might still have been cared for communally as you describe, though; I can imagine my brother and me sharing a bunch of women and not caring who the father of the children was.

Even if we didn't connect sex to children, that doesn't mean we wouldn't care who the baby's father was.  Lions probably aren't smart enough consciously to connect sex to children, but they still kill off the cubs of other fathers when taking over a pride.

Polygamy is the paleo way.

Do you have actual evidence to support this? Because I don't buy it.

There are a number of animals that are naturally monogamous.

As Warren points out:

Gibbons are also monogamous, suggesting that humans may also be naturally monogamous, although there could be other explanations.

Given that humans are very prone to jealousy, I have the feeling that we lean towards wanting one sexual partner and person, if only for purely selfish reasons. How many women, given a choice really want to share their husband with someone else? Not many. I'd also put forth that even men that sort of like the idea of having more than one wife would probably not be amused with the idea of sharing her with another man.

That being said, I've often mused that I'd like a wife myself. Not for sex, but to help me with all the things I don't have time to do during the day.

AND I'm also of an age that has no interest in having children but I have absolutely not intention of giving up sex. That's crazy talk.

But for you. It is possible for you to get a different woman pregnant everyday.

Is that a challenge? 

Just had a new website idea:  1chickAday.com