Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcc6!sdcc13!pa1412
From: pa1412@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa1412)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Body count. . .
Message-ID: <6258@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 90 02:14:09 GMT
References: <70181@tiger.oxy.edu> <12982@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <18558@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <8350@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 20

In article <8350@portia.Stanford.EDU> alderson@jessica.stanford.edu (Rich Alderson) writes:
>In article <18558@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, dragon@eleazar (Sam Conway) writes:
>>I find it very sexist of me but reasonable to say I can see a man haveing
>>a harem but not a woman with manny husbands.
>
>So much for the polyandrous Polynesians studied by Malinowski.

Or Nepalees. A Scientific American article awhile back( I'm at
school so I can't recall the issue), had as its main thesis that
polyandrous societies developed when there was a need to preserve
the population at a fixed level. The usable land of Nepal was fixed
so polyandrea(sp) developed since the birth rate of such a society is
nearly flat.  Polygamy, however, has a non-flat growth rate so the
execess population must go somewhere else if the current area is
unable to sustain the population.

--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
pa1412@iugrad2.ucsd.edu