Can Polygamous Marriages Play An Important Role In A Modern Western Society?

Submitted by Yardbroom

Jacob Zuma and Tobeka Madiba. Photograph: Mike Hutchings/AP

The recent marriage of South African President Jacob Zuma (67) to his fifth wife Tobeka Madiba (36) has caused the raising of some eyebrows even in South Africa.  President Zuma has three wives at present, when numbers are involved and they have a significant impact on what is written they should be correct.  He had two other wives but divorced Nkosazana Dlamini in 1998 and the other Kate Mantsho committed suicide in 2000 after taking a fatal overdose, she described her marriage to Zuma as “24 years of hell”.  Her remarks are not meant here as an indication of my feelings on polygamous marriage, they have been added as reported comment.

To those who like detail his other wives are Sizakele Khumalo married in 1973 and Nompumelelo Ntuli married in 2008.

I have no wish to lay false trails but it has been reported that his “fiancée” Gloria Bongi Ngema who has a three year old son with the President has already brought (wedding gifts) to the Zuma family often a precursor to marriage…other celebrations might be soon afoot.

For those with a desire to have terms right, I am aware that Polygamy is one man having multiple wives and Polyandry is a practice where a woman is married to more than one man at the same time.  However, I am using Polygamy to mean one man having multiple wives because of general usage.

To those who think Polygamy is not suitable for a modern western society particularly a President.  Zuma will say he respects tradition, he is a Zulu with a strong support base in his country, particularly in rural areas.  Are we suggesting that because Zuma wearing animal skins danced and celebrated as his ancestors would have done, he is doing something undignified for a President; or is it the number of wives being married to at the same time?

May I add Polygamy is a right enshrined in South Africa’s Constitution.

For those who have reservations about Polygamy and there are many who will, you should be able to make a strong coherent case that can stand up to detailed examination.

A “quick skip” only for background through other cultures, periods and societies throws up some interesting observations.  Ancient Egypt: “Marriages were most often between people of the same social class, but there seems to have been little regard to race or even nationality.  It was not unusual for a northern Egyptian to marry a Nubian, or someone even from another country”….  “Among common people, polygamy may very well have existed as it obviously did in the royal class, but if so it was rare.  We know from excavations such as Deir El Medina that housing of common people conformed to monogamy rather than Polygamy” 

[ Marriage in Ancient Egypt: Mark Andrews]

Is it possible that financial restraints could have influenced the decisions taken by common people?

I will touch ever so lightly the hem of those with religious leanings as they know “Abraham had 3 wives, Sarah, Hagar and Keturah; Jacob had 4 Leah, Rachel, Bilah, and Zilpah; “David King of Israel” had at least 18 wives Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam of Jezreel, Eglah, Maacah, Abital, Haggith and Bathsheba and 10 women/concubines; Esau had 3, Judith, Bashemath and Mahalath”.  I will not dwell on Solomon he had 1,000 wives Sidontans, Tyrians, Ammonites and Edomites.

I have no substantial discourse to make regarding Solomon – or others mentioned above – I refer you to 1 Kings 11: 3 for that.

With a view to modern society some Mormons even today practice “plural marriage” using the 1886 John Taylor revelation as their authority there is a view such practice is illegal in America…I will let that legal aspect rest.

In an article in the Daily Mail, England, dated 18th April 2007 it was reported: “Polygamous husbands settling in Britain with multiple wives can claim extra benefits for their “harems” even though bigamy is a crime in the UK, it has emerged”…  “Opposition MP’s are demanding an urgent change in the Law claiming that the Government is recognising and rewarding a custom which has no legal status and which is “alien” to this country’s cultural traditions”.

Muslim Law to which the majority of the above adhere allows a man up to four wives but he must be able to show that he can treat each woman equally and produce a separate home for each one.

Personally it is not for me to condone or condemn in this submission, I will leave the last words to Buddhism: “It is said in the Parabhava Sutta that a man who is not satisfied with one woman and seeks out other women is on the path to decline.”   Bloggers might have a different view.

Tags: , , ,

60 Comments on “Can Polygamous Marriages Play An Important Role In A Modern Western Society?”

  1. sad very sad January 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM #

    yes ! the west corrupted the idea. told africans no to many wives yes to homosexuality.

    sad vey sad !

    Like

  2. Anonymous(2) January 9, 2010 at 7:30 PM #

    The word is “fiancee” not “finance”. Yeeeeeeeesh

    Like

  3. David January 9, 2010 at 7:42 PM #

    @Anonymous (2)

    Sometimes it is not what you say but how.

    Apologies to you Yardbroom. We normally run submissions through the spell-checker and BU inadvertently changed the word in question which was correctly submitted by you.

    Like

  4. Anonymous January 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM #

    Be it fiancee or financee, Bonny packin she bags fa South Africa as we speak.A wonda if he lookin fa a 6th fiancee/financee. He doan look bad a ‘tall fa he age. Sumting good happenin fa he.
    I wid Sparrow, “De mo de merriah”.

    Like

  5. Bonny Peppa January 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM #

    De above is me. I faget ta sign in. De packin gettin ma nervous.
    David,
    Jet Blue is fly ta South Africa too?

    Like

  6. ROK January 9, 2010 at 8:00 PM #

    “It is said in the Parabhava Sutta that a man who is not satisfied with one woman and seeks out other women is on the path to decline.”

    I think that if we had to transpose this polygamously, that would have to be re-written as follows:

    “a man who is not satisfied with four wives and seeks out other women is on the path to decline.”

    Like

  7. ROK January 9, 2010 at 8:08 PM #

    “Marriages were most often between people of the same social class, but there seems to have been little regard to race or even nationality.”

    In Egypt even foreigners could be Pharaohs. One female Pharaoh, on her death bed, sought to marry the son of a foreign King so the son could be Pharaoh as she had no heir. This was to ensure that the blood of royalty flowed through the line of Pharaohs.

    Like

  8. Anon January 9, 2010 at 8:17 PM #

    Good piece. My view is simple. If the man and his wives wish to live that way, it is up to them. They are not hurting anyone. If the woman and her husbands want to live like that, that too is up to them. They are hurting no one. BUT, I have a caveat. As long as the State is not required to pay for benefits for more than ONE spouse.

    If we start to infringe and limit people’s cultural and religeous beliefs, other than those that might actually have the potential to harm others and place them at risk, then we are denying freedom of belief.

    Now, someone is going to talk about the effect it has on children – but frankly, children are far more adaptable than adults and are really only harmed by the prejudice and bigotary of us adults. If Daddy has a few Mummys for you or Mummy has a few Daddy’s for you, you are happy as long as you are taken care of and loved – until someone comes along and tries to persuade you that your happy existence is a sin. But, is it a sin? Who decided it was a sin? As we have seen, certainly not the Bible.

    Personally, I think that it is best that a marriage be a one-on-one relationship. Certainly the fabric of our societies today with their social benefits etc., are all based on a one-on-one marriage.

    As to whether or not multiple spouses is a sin, well, as I totter towards antiquity, chances are I will find out at some stage, but in circumstances that will not allow me to pass on that information to any mortal being, unless they are mediums – in which case, my message to them is unlikely to be very widely heard or even believed.

    Like

  9. Anon January 9, 2010 at 8:30 PM #

    ROK // January 9, 2010 at 8:08 PM. You could take that even further and say that it is amazing how, once people are promoted, they forget where they came from. The Ptolomy dynasty of Egyptian Pharaohs originated through one of the generals of Alexander the Great, of which its most famous member was Cleopatra. Also, the Egyptian royal line was transmitted through the females of the royal family. This was based on the old Greek adage, long before DNA testing, that “maternity is a matter of fact….paternity is a matter of opinion.”

    Like

  10. David January 9, 2010 at 8:36 PM #

    The pertinent observation for BU on Zuma embracing local tradition is just that. Often times we have seen how local culture has been penetrated and even obliterated by Western customs, not so in Africa in this case. The merits and demerits of polygamy is another matter.

    Like

  11. Crusoe January 9, 2010 at 8:45 PM #

    The one husband / woman marriage is a relatively recent and western concept.

    One can discuss whether it is due to either religious attitude or as a means of ensuring some form of social stability in developing and developed modern societies.

    Certainly, multiple partners as ‘offical and legal partners’ will certainly complicate legal matters including divorce, custody, inheritance but this is strictly a legal issue.

    Pertinent definitions, both take from Wikpedia :’Bigamy is the act or condition of a person marrying another person while still being lawfully married to a second person. Bigamy is listed (and sometimes prosecuted) as a crime in most western countries.’

    Crime: ‘Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as police power) may ultimately prescribe a conviction. While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as “offences” or as “infractions”.’

    Now, why is this viewed as a crime, not as a civil infraction within the context of both definitions?

    Certainly, if one partner is unaware of the second marriage, some level of damage has taken place, but no more so than with a civil contract surely.

    Is the law viewing the breach of the governing rule together with the ‘injury to the other partner’ as the crime?

    No logical. Crime is usually seen as one where significant loss occurs by the action of one against another person or entity. Thus, a personal injury or a fraud may be criminal, purely because of the loss.

    Merely breaching the rules, as per definition does not take one into the criminal definition.

    Supposing both the primary and secondary partners ‘wives’, give consent.

    Where is the loss?

    This may even be beneficial for the parties involved i.e. all aspects of the ‘marriages’ may improve in their eyes i.e. physical, duties i.e. cooking, family arrangements i.e. schooling duties etc.

    Where is the loss?

    Clearly, such a situation could only be viewed as a breach of rules, for forms sake, no injury has taken place.

    Is this treatment of multiple marriages then a breach of freedom of choice? Is action taken against multiple marriages, with due consent, then unconstitutional?

    It would seem that these rules exist purely to ensure some semblance of ‘control’ in society, such that lines are easily drawn and enforced, nothing more and nothing less.

    Like

  12. ROK January 9, 2010 at 8:50 PM #

    @David
    “Often times we have seen how local culture has been penetrated and even obliterated by Western customs, not so in Africa in this case.”

    Good observation. Let us not tarnish it by saying that we should not allow for more than one wife. At least two man, Anon man… You gine let a poor man lose all he wives? Have a heart.

    Like

  13. ROK January 9, 2010 at 9:03 PM #

    @Crusoe

    “Merely breaching the rules, as per definition does not take one into the criminal definition… Where is the loss?”

    All loss is not tangible. For example, anything that could be considered an outrage to the society.

    Like

  14. huh???? January 9, 2010 at 9:07 PM #

    I’m all for it AND gay marriage too.

    In Barbados let us normalise our ‘Village Ram’ culture AND move foward at the same time!

    Like

  15. BAFBFP January 9, 2010 at 9:16 PM #

    Hi ac… what’s up..?

    Like

  16. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) January 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM #

    Polygamy was a normal part of culture in pre-Christian times and has been manouevred (moralised, if you like) out of favour through the development of Christianity. Most countries allow some form of polygamy, which given the prevalence of non-Christian traditions, is no big surprise. But even some countries that are predominantly Christian in name (eg USA and UK) allow some polygamy.

    Like

  17. ac January 9, 2010 at 10:50 PM #

    @Huh???
    Can you imagine Tiger Woods having to deal with six wives in a western society?
    Give me a break? murda………………..

    @BAFBFP
    Answer:Out of sight out of mind.Just kidding.

    Like

  18. Yardbroom January 10, 2010 at 6:48 AM #

    There are only a “few” men who have not thought at sometime. I wonder if or what, but certain restraints social or otherwise then kick in and the status quo remains.

    If a man is financially able to maintain a household adequately, containing more than one wife and there is some level of “social acceptance” for the children of those unions – and as Anon alluded to no necessary input from the is required – I am struggling to see why that situation should not flourish…but I could be persuaded otherwise.

    Dare I say a “wife” might be better provided for in all respects, in a household with 4 other wives with a rich man, than being a single occupant in a household with a poor husband.

    @ ROK
    I take your point of 8:00 pm Jan 9, 2010. However, my reference to the Parabhava Sutta with the “emphasis” being more than one “woman” was not specific to President Zuma’s circumstances. As regards numbers it was a device inviting comment to broaden the discourse.

    @ Anonymous (2)
    Jan 9, 2010 at 7:30pm

    David has most satisfactorily dealt with your contribution. I am indebted for your alertness; you have taken on a “heavy burden.”

    Like

  19. Crusoe January 10, 2010 at 8:10 AM #

    ROK, Point taken, but I am still wary of ascribing ‘whatever’ society feels like as ‘wrong’ per se?

    ac: It would seem from the news reports that Tiger Woods has clearly shown both his financial and physical abilities to accomodate many wives.

    Unfortunately, obviously his ‘first wife’ is not disposed to others, neither the media, so there goes the plan.

    Question for the ladies,

    With such a wealthy man, I suspect there are those who will be quite happy flying around shopping, enjoying shows etc, while having someone else do wifely duties, after all, if there are five or six wives, the load is lessened, no?

    Just think , you don’t feel well one day, so one or a couple of the other wives looks after the children, does chores etc.

    If a woman is laid up in bed ill for weeks or months, there are others able to provide for her and the children.

    Not logical?

    Secondly, maybe the ‘wives’ will have their ‘boyfriends’ also??? Bit of a role there for the young fellows in the community.

    Maybe I’ll get hammered by the replies on this?

    Can’t resist throwing out these queries though.

    Thirdly, surely the regular cases of husbands and wives having a ‘second’ (you know the calypso ‘a deputy essential’) exhibits the tendency to seek further fulfillment via multiple partners?

    If we are going to discuss points of social context and communities per se, then why not discuss whether tribal communities, which are ‘natural’ via social evolution, have it right?

    Or are we going to base the discussion from a base of western civilisation norms, anything further being ignored, just because such norms make things easier to control legally i.e. one man, one wife?

    Like

  20. ac January 10, 2010 at 8:25 AM #

    @Crusoe

    I got news for you in western society we woman don’t play that .What’s mine is mine if not we see you in court.No way we share openly what ever the number.
    If i need a maid and he can afford it that she will be .If he get some sex on the side better not let us know for there will be hell to pay No bosey I ain’t having it.
    I ain’t killing myself for no man like some of them wives in the article.
    As for tiger he lucky he only got one wife to deal with .For six to pay alimony in western society he would be playing golf forever.

    Like

  21. Anonymous January 10, 2010 at 8:47 AM #

    It would be interesting to read the opinion of another distinguished South African, that is, King Goodwill Zwelithini. He is the King of the Zulu Nation, recognised as such by the South African Constitution, a devout Anglican Christian and husband to six women.

    Like

  22. Anon January 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM #

    As a man (and a happily married one at that for MANY years) I regret to have to say that Barbados is truly a society of male chauvenist pigs.

    Here is everybody discussing the merits of a man having more than one wife in a most amusing “nudge, nudge, wink, wink manner.” But the ladies may well want more than one husband. After all, a woman is capable of far greater sexual activity than a man (no matter what we males would like to believe) and a woman can also point to nature – the Queen Bee – to support her position. So come on, ladies, let us male oinks have it. Join in this fray.

    There was a legendary actress from Europe once (I have forgotten her name – but it had to be over 100 years ago) who was in the United States on a visit. She had had MANY lovers and had a son from one of them. One of these little tight-assed New York society bitches decided to put her down. “My dear, how amazing that you have had a son, but never a husband.” The actress replied, “And that you have had so many husbands and never any children.” Game, set and match.

    So, gentlemen, what is sauce for the gander must certainly be sauce for the goose – or is universal sufferage not extended that far?

    This is really a good topic.

    Like

  23. Yardbroom January 10, 2010 at 10:21 AM #

    @ Anon
    You are surely not taking any prisoners and in such good form on a Sunday morning….wha law wa lay!

    Like

  24. Anonymous January 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM #

    May I suggest that marriage historically was instituted to identify (or at least to assign) the paternity of children and therefore kinship? With advances in medical technology along with changes in social norms and behaviour, it may be expected that polyandry (one woman many husbands)
    or even polyamory (many men in relationship with many women i.e. a mutually agreed orgy (LOL)) will occur.

    Like

  25. Pearl January 10, 2010 at 10:47 AM #

    Well we have simulated polygamy, (or horning) just that legally you cannot marry more than one person. However this does not stop a person from having children with another outside of the marriage and setting up a second home.

    AC I agree with you that in the ideal world most women do not want to share their man.

    However if men can marry more than one woman of their choice(let’s hope the woman has some kind of prenup to protect her interests), women should be able to marry more than one man of their choice (not marrying 2 brothers as in some of the examples of polyandry given on the internet).

    Now here lies the problem. Men are happy to ‘share’ themselves and expect their wife or girlfriend to accept it but when their woman take up another man all hell lets loose……MURDER!
    !

    So AC in response to your question if you guys can do it us girls can do it to….but can you handle it? Can you handle it when your not well your wife nips of down the road to husband no. 2 for some action? Can you handle it if your wife uses your hard earned cash, jets of round the world with her other husband leaving you at home to mind the children etc. etc……

    Like

  26. David January 10, 2010 at 10:55 AM #

    When discussing polygamy we in the West must appreciate this is a practice delineated along custom. If our understanding (BU) is correct, a man marrying several women does it predicated on love. The women who are part of the custom of polygamy appreciate the love bit therefore our concern about sharing bodies and reference to orgies really doesn’t fly.

    Like

  27. VOR January 10, 2010 at 11:02 AM #

    LOL!!! They won’t be able to handle that!!!

    Like

  28. Crusoe January 10, 2010 at 11:12 AM #

    But ladies, surely polyandry will indicate that a woman can ‘provide for’ several husbands!

    What is the definition for ‘provide for’?

    I may be splitting hairs, but context is everything.

    That said, if she is happy to carry ‘Husband No.3′ off to Paris for a week of business and fun, are Husband No 1 and 2 not allowed to enjoy alternate activity elsewhere?

    Note that I am being equal opportunity here, I did raise this for the ladies too.

    Cleopatra was supposed to be quite a lady, indeed including her reported love with Marc Antony.

    Can we assume that there were multiple lovers for that Queen?

    She could certainly provide for many.

    Would this be a problem today, if a current day Queen of Egypt had and provided for many partners?

    Equal opportunity.

    Like

  29. Crusoe January 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM #

    Hope I am not digging a hole here.

    LOL.

    Like

  30. Crusoe January 10, 2010 at 11:18 AM #

    Ladies, one more question.

    You know those ‘relationships’ where a fellow has a girlfriend for years, the wife knows, even speaks and contact the other lady normally.

    The girl knows that he will never leave the wife, the wife knows fully about the girl.

    Is that not in effect a polygamous relationship??

    Only difference is that they do not live under one roof? Although that, per definitions above actually appears irrelevant.

    And I have heard of more than one of these, involving older people AND younger people!

    Like

  31. Bonny Peppa January 10, 2010 at 12:05 PM #

    Goodbye all. Bonny on she way ta South Africa. Will send back de weddin pics.

    Bye, bye.

    Like

  32. Hopi January 10, 2010 at 1:56 PM #

    I wholeheartedly support polyandry. But let it be known that the men have to go out and work.

    We’ll build a huge compound and have everyone under the same roof. In this way the children are well taken care of and we might even eliminate the criminal juvenile system. And there won’t be any need for women to be ‘blackguarding’ men in de street bout chile support. For the most part the children would be well take care of.

    And the same goes for polygamy as well.

    The same people who sat around under their greasy wigs with bible in hand and came up with these laws, are the same people who creep around on their spouses and children.

    Live, love and let live!

    Like

  33. Bimbro January 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM #

    Putrid Africans!! Why in god’s name would we still want to live there! In fact, even they don’t!!
    Laaaaadddddddddddddddd!!
    ROK, u still pun hay?!! wa u in got nutten betta ta do!!
    Laaaaaaddddddddddddd
    Bonny, lef e nuh?!! eh Bonny?!!
    Laaaaaaaaddddddddddd!!
    doan worry, i in stayin bo!!
    happy n. year!! :)

    Like

  34. Sargeant January 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM #

    In response to the question posed; In a word NO.

    Many folks response seem to be on the sexual side of the issue but no one seems to focus on why the practice came about in the first place. If necessity is the mother of invention then this practice has its roots from the days when men were hunter/gatherers and women stayed at home to knit (or whatever women did in those days) Since women have always outnumbered men, many women of child bearing age would have been left to fend for them selves while the women who had partners would be able to feast on whatever game their men brought home. The elders in those times proposed a solution to the problem as in “ we can’t let all those women wither away childless and unprotected we have to find a way to make them productive and voila here is what we should do”. Lets create a system where we can feed and protect our women and have more children some of whom will grow up to help fight our battles against our enemies. Enter Polygamy where the man is responsible for the feeding and protecting several women,, Interestingly polygamy in some societies is tied to the man’s ability to support several wives, not every “Village Ram” is accorded the right to marry several different women.

    In time this practice became part of the group’s cultural heritage and then became enshrined in their religion. Enter the missionaries who saw men partnered with several women and said “wuhloss we can’t have this it is wrong everything is wrong, from the positions in which you have sex to having multiple wives, from eating meat on certain days etc……”. . Meanwhile in the missionaries own society their leaders were running around copulating with every nubile lass that moved but it was a case “Don’t do as I do”.

    Getting back to the question, in today’s Western world the women are as likely to be hunter/gatherers and their earning power may exceed their partner’s so if their partner thinks that he can have a little harem on the side, wifey may decide to do the same or else kick him out the house while declaring “Don’t let the door hit your backside on the way out”.

    It wouldn’t work in Western society as we know it but may well work in some other societies.

    Like

  35. Technician January 10, 2010 at 3:28 PM #

    Well Well Well…

    Bimbro…How the hell are ya?

    I knew this is the topic that would bring you out…Africans and women..LOL.

    Still good to see that you are still here with us (did I just type that).

    Like

  36. Anon January 10, 2010 at 4:32 PM #

    Sargeant // January 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM. You said:

    “Meanwhile in the missionaries own society their leaders were running around copulating with every nubile lass that moved….”

    Please review and rephrase:

    “Meanwhile in the missionaries own society their leaders were running around copulating with every lad and lass that moved….”

    It is an equal opportunities world, especially in the RC world – at least in that respect. They will not ordain women or allow priests to marry, but at least they practice universal sufferage in respect of sexual adventures and they do NOT discriminate in so far as age is concerned.

    Like

  37. Crusoe January 10, 2010 at 4:42 PM #

    Bimbro,

    Hello and Happy New Year.

    Sure this is not why you were MIA here, moonlighting elsewhere?

    Like

  38. ac January 10, 2010 at 5:32 PM #

    In polgamy when there is a new wife the previous wife is demoted and on longer has the privileges and status she once enjoyed.

    @Crusoe
    Some women prefer to have an open relationship knowingfull well they are not going to let no other woman married theirhusbandthat is the difference.For them it is a easier to go along and get along. Also in the mean time they getting their doggie on the side.

    Like

  39. Bonny Peppa January 10, 2010 at 6:15 PM #

    ac
    Lord haveis mercy. Taday is Sundee. Behave yaself. Ya got ma cryinnnnn. Stop talkin bout ma nah. (gettin de doggie pun de side).Ya swoiteeeeeeeee.

    Bimbro
    I doan even wanna hear you man. You desert me like a true friend would. wah happenin? Ya tricksta. Ga long. You up ta sum new tricks now a betcha.
    Happy New Year to you n yours from me n mine.
    Still good ta see ya even if briefly.

    Like

  40. Sargeant January 10, 2010 at 7:37 PM #

    Part of the content of this article is devoted to some of the exploits of President Zuma. At an age when the libido of most men is said to be flagging or at full arrest he marries a 36 year woman who from the looking at the photo can be described as comely. I know that we men can turn to the various pharmaceuticals or folk remedies for assistance in matters of bedroom calisthenics but when a 67 year man with several wives marries a 36 year old woman my immediate question is, which one of his/her bodyguards will be working the land?.

    However Zuma seems to be a different kind of cat, this is a man who allegedly raped a woman who was described as a family friend and one who was HIV infected (which he was also aware of) Zuma claimed the relationship was consensual but he never used a condom and would shower after to ward off the possibility of contracting an illness.

    It would be bad manners if I didn’t wish the newly weds the best of happiness in the future and may they live happily ever after.

    Like

  41. Pat January 10, 2010 at 8:16 PM #

    @ Bimbro

    Nice to know you still have body and soul together!

    Happy New Year.

    How the new wife?

    Pat

    Like

  42. ac January 10, 2010 at 8:22 PM #

    @Sergeant
    What a load of crap ! and to imagine a woman even considering marrying to him.She deserves what she got Lad hav merci………………….He is the true definition of a snake.

    Like

  43. BAFBFP January 10, 2010 at 10:53 PM #

    119 has returned…!

    Like

  44. J January 10, 2010 at 11:07 PM #

    I often wonder how multiple women can bear to be married to one man.

    Surely these poor women cannot possibly be getting enough sex (and don’t tell be that a 67 something year old man can sexually satisfy multiple women who are decades younger than he is)

    The truth is he can’t.

    And don’t tell me either that women don’t like much sex.

    Everyone knows that women are capable of servicing the sexual needs of many men each day.

    If you are one wife among many surely this must lead to great sexual frustration.

    Or nuff, nuff horns for the old fools.

    Like

  45. Bimbro January 11, 2010 at 4:02 AM #

    LOL!! Tech n everybody else!! braving d snow man, dats wha i doing dese days!!
    Crusoe, thanks bro but he’s not me! African ull notice. have seen it before but still v. funny so thanks for the reminder!! would n’t dream of being political but video makes my point eloquently about both sets of the people involved! in saying nuh mo bout dat!!

    Bonny, i know u getting nuf ***** up day in Bim n i jealous as **ite but, u tek care darling n jus enjoy yuhself this new year!!

    Pat, thanks darling n the same to u!! re: ‘the new wife’!! why, u jealous?!! doan worry, when i come over there i plan to check u out!!

    BAF, take care bro! love all!! out!!

    Like

  46. ac January 11, 2010 at 6:45 AM #

    @BAFBFP

    What’s the point.?

    Like

  47. BAFBFP January 11, 2010 at 8:17 AM #

    ac you gotta way wid words. Man we got tah resume conversements..!

    Like

  48. Ready Done January 11, 2010 at 12:42 PM #

    YES

    Like

  49. Johnny Postle January 11, 2010 at 2:21 PM #

    In essence, Barbadians do practice a form or type of ‘polygamy’ but its without the marriage. It is called horning ya wife with two or three woman.

    Like

  50. the hood aka robin hood January 11, 2010 at 5:06 PM #

    Correction JP, you really mean SOME Bajans practice a form of polygamy!

    Like

  51. Anonymous January 11, 2010 at 5:52 PM #

    I wouldn’t mind having a “finance”.

    Like

  52. ac January 11, 2010 at 7:11 PM #

    @BAFBFP

    Check the rhi-rhibloglot uh talk.What’s with the disappearing act.You a magician
    or what.?

    @Anonymous.
    Good luck .I hope you find what yuh looking for be it male or female.But whatis ityuh looking fuh.Yuh need a better resume.Don’t bother to correct my spelling.

    @any

    Like

  53. BAFBFP January 12, 2010 at 1:06 AM #

    ac

    What is rhi-rhibloglot..? Was incapacitated for a while.. every so often I got to tune out, you know, wheel and come again..! So what’s up?

    Like

  54. ac January 12, 2010 at 6:28 AM #

    @BAFBFP
    o.k. yuh kinda a slow that refer to another blog ‘rihanna” check it.
    anyhow don’t fret still#1

    Like

  55. B4 DAWN January 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM #

    Folly from bonny
    Folly from rock
    Folly from ac
    Folly from all and sundry

    Like

  56. ac January 12, 2010 at 7:59 PM #

    @B4Dawn

    Mind yuh own business
    From ac
    Mind yuh own business
    From All

    Like

  57. klaas February 12, 2010 at 6:13 AM #

    there is nothing wrong with polygamy if it mean practicing one’s culture. but many men uses it as an excuse to fulfil their ‘animal’ desire.

    Like

  58. Cupcake April 8, 2010 at 3:51 AM #

    Our president represent alot of cultures as SA is a rainbow nation. Let him show the world how we do things in SA. LOL. But I would never engage myself in it. Let him live his life he knows what he is doing.

    Like

  59. Yume April 25, 2012 at 9:59 PM #

    Rarely someone ask we women what we think about patriarcal pratices,specially ones who reduce us to commodities.In the end,it´s always the “culture” excuse.
    Disgusting…

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Get Rid Of Contaminants With A Detox Foot Tub | Neutralizing Harmful Toxins In The Physique - September 30, 2013

    […] the h2o is salted, some suspect the foot detox recipes machines are simply just alternating present-day and immediate recent transformers, attached to […]

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,473 other followers