The smartest thing I think a woman can do is to marry (or cohabitate with) a younger man. For one, females live longer by males by about five years, so if you don’t want to live alone at the end of your life, this is your best bet. Secondly, a younger man is more likely to be sexually active and satisfying as the woman ages. As far as kids go, while it is biologically better to have kids when you are young, they can tie you down just when you are ready to be independent, have some fun, or start a career. If a woman thinks ahead, she can extract and freeze some of her eggs when she is young, have a career and a boyfriend, and have kids later when she finds a suitable young mate. While men can have kids even into their older years, their fertility goes down and the chance of defects rises, so women in their late thirties and early forties face the extra obstacle of older, more defective sperm. A younger man will increase the odds of a successful conception.
Why do women still think they need a distinguished older man who can provide for her? Times have changed and women are no longer restricted to keeping up the home and raising kids. Even if that is what a woman wants, why should she have to live out the end of her life alone because she married an older man? At least find someone no older than you and, if you can hold out, wait a little extra longer.
Women in India and China are now in much higher demand due to the shortsighted and prejudiced practice of aborting female fetuses, which has resulted in a huge shortage of women. If they are smart, they will wait for their choice of a young man who is able to compete for her affections.
I take back what I said about marrying a younger man being the best move for a woman. If a woman wants to get started raising a family when she young (early twenties), the best option may actually be to marry two men. That is, to start with one older husband followed later by a younger one. The older man should be around 30 years old, which is mature enough to be ready for a family and able to provide some financial stability. When she is about 30 and he is going on 40, she should add a younger man to the marriage to provide company in old age, additional income, and a better chance of continuing to expand her family for many years to come.
Counter intuitively, there may also be sexual benefits as well. The men might fear that there would be less sex to go around, but this is probably not the case. Since the average man only takes seven minutes to orgasm, and this is not long enough for the average woman, she would have the benefit of two men to extend the lovemaking session twice as long. And what woman would not want a threesome with two heterosexual men? OK, maybe a lot, but that is probably just because society has always told us how wrong it is for a woman to want this. So, instead of the frequency of sex going down, the length of each session would probably just go up, which is probably just what she wants and might eventually be just fine with the guys, who would be under less pressure to perform. If they both fail to satisfy her, they could at least blame the other.
Studies have shown that when men are in sexual competition for a female, a little evolutionary effect called “sperm competition” is triggered, which gets them more aroused and causes their sperm count to spike upward. This is nature’s way of increasing a man’s chance of being able to successfully impregnate a female. Thus, when she is trying to conceive, not only does she get longer lovemaking sessions leading to a greater chance of orgasm, she gets two men each of whom has enhanced sperm output. Since having an orgasm following copulation is also believed to increase the chances of successful conception, she gets another bonus.
Let’s not be single sided in extolling the benefits for a woman and look at what the man gets. If they both work, they bring in more total household income, which leads to a higher standard of living, more security in the event of a job loss, and/or more free time. Each man can trade off golfing, going to the gym, playing poker, or whatever past-time he really enjoys, while the other takes care of the wife’s needs. You know what I mean. Shopping, yard work, handyman stuff, watching vampire TV shows, etc. The stuff you just can’t get out of no matter how hard you try to delay, cut corners, or pay someone else to do. The same applies to taking care of the kids. However, you now have to coordinate your answers among the three of you when the kids try to scam one of you into something they want.
The benefits of a two-man one-female relationship just seem to keep on coming (that was not an intentional pun)! So why wouldn’t we want to make poligamy, or more specifically, polyandry legal? Don’t give me any Bible-thumping family-values nonsense. We all know that polygamy was standard practice in biblical times, only they had it backwards since women were subservient to men and were confined to being baby-making machines for rich men who wanted to build a large clan.
Mysteriously, we have changed our values so much that, even if you are a billionaire golf icon who can afford to support a whole harem of women, you are ridiculed and forced to apologize for doing what our ancient religious founders claimed as their natural right. Now that women have a large measure of independence in much of the world, why shouldn’t the tables be turned when it makes sense? Chances are, few countries will permit a formal marriage of a woman to two men no matter how much sense it might make. Gay marriages will be common before anyone tries to make polygamy legal again, but there isn’t really a need for such a formality. Celebrities have been living and raising families with partners for years without a marriage contract (e.g. Johnny Depp, Gene Simmons, Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn). So, adding a third party without a contract would only be a minor inconvenience. They could always tie the knot after the older guy croaks.
Polyandry is obviously rare and generally only practiced where there are shortages of women. Sometimes a wife is shared by multiple brothers to keep property, such as land, within one family. However, I’m pretty sure that Chinese and Indian men would rather fight each other to the death rather than accept polygamous unions where the female has multiple partners. In Asian cultures, women are still relatively dependent on men, assuming they are even allowed to live. But necessity breeds invention, so unless the men decide to fight it out and reduce their numbers, the wife shortage will begin to create a problem. Maybe this is nature’s way of pushing social reform.