I will try to pick up where I left off...again, I reiterate that the subject matter is a difficult one, bearing in mind that it is a woman writing about it.
Had it been a male, I am 100% sure, he would not need to dig deep into finding the "objective" pros and cons.
Anyways, let me continue...even though I cannot guarantee beforehand an all final conclusion on the subject matter. After all, I did say I am rambling and you have the choice to either trip with me or to back out...
Historically or should I say anthropologically, well at least as far as my knowledge goes, the polyandrous societies that I recall reading about were two. One of them, and am not sure they still exist, was in the Tibet, where one woman would be shared by several men -- husband, brother in law, and others... and according to some historical reading I still have recollections of, in the pre-Islamic era, in the Southern tip of the Arabian peninsula now called Saudi Arabia, similar polyandrous structures existed, whereby a woman would have up to 10 husbands. More than 10 would be considered prostitution.
And according to some historical narratives, if the woman kept the door of her tent down, it would signal to one of the husbands, that she is busy with another one.,.
Some would argue that the polyandrous woman had no choice. That she was shared amongst the men of the tribe/clan like an object.
There might be some truth in that. When reading about polyandrous societies in the Tibet, for instance, I do remember that the polygamous women there HAD to accept the husband's brother and even being given away as a "present" to a male visitor.
I remember reading similar stories amongst the Inuits/Eskimo females, by which a woman would be given off as a "present" to a visitor...
Of course this leads me to question if in these polyandrous systems, women were actually free to choose, to start with...and it leads me to question if women were truly the matriarchs there or if the structure of polyandry was imposed upon them by the men, all the way...
Which of course, leads me to conclude that "male possessiveness" is not necessarily an "innate", biologically, predetermined one, but can also very well be a societal, structurally, culturally, induced trait depending on context.
If we hypothetically assume that these polyandrous females were not forced into this societal construct by the men, at that particular time (of course no one bothered to ask them if they were happy having up to 10 men at a time), then one might conclude that it is fairly possible that these polyandrous women were truly polygamous and acted out of CHOICE.
Even though I very much doubt the above proposition, seeing that men are overall a bunch of assholes and that one male is more than enough, but for assumption's sake I will take that female polyandry was a "free choice" by the women and that there truly existed some matriarchal form of power that translated itself into polyandrous structures...
And at that point, I am going to get quite personal...after all who would want to fuck the husband, and the brother of the husband and the uncle of the husband and the visitor of the husband...and God knows who else ...
I mean, one is more than enough...so said Eve as she fell and tumbled down with Mr. Adam...
On that subject, there is an Arabic joke in which Adam, with a pouting face asks Eve: " Do you love me darling? " And Eve replies : " Why is there anyone else around here but you!"
I suppose Eve and all the others did not have much choice to start with, they were stuck with one Adam.
Except for the 1%...
