Concubines acceptable

Isn't this the norm in western Europe nowadays? :p

I kid, I suppose that the children that result from these affairs would receive some sort of status from their fathers.
 
Those concubines might be fun when they are young and attractive but what about when they get old? Nowadays people live into their 80's and women live longer than men so is the man still going to pay for a 70 year old concubines keep?
 

NothingNow

Banned
Those concubines might be fun when they are young and attractive but what about when they get old? Nowadays people live into their 80's and women live longer than men so is the man still going to pay for a 70 year old concubines keep?
That just means they have to get kinkier as the years pass.
 
I think "registered partners" are de facto marriages.

You can still only have one. There are people who practice plural marriage in Europe today, but the state recognises only one partner (in the case of polygamous immigrant families, de-facto exceptions tend to be made).

Relationships with multiple partners aren't uncommon, nor hae they ever been, but legal recognition is today probably farther away than it was in the 18th century.
 
Those concubines might be fun when they are young and attractive but what about when they get old? Nowadays people live into their 80's and women live longer than men so is the man still going to pay for a 70 year old concubines keep?

I: it's about wealth. A rich man should find no difficulty maintaining a number of concubines, if he wanted to.

II: not all forms of legal concubinage are indissoluble. Many men might still choose to discard concubines much as they do wives today.

III: do not underestimate the possibility that concubinage could involve a serious emotional investment. Vespasian (was there anything about this guy that wasn't made of awesome?) married for political reasons, but maintained a lifelong trusting and loving relationship with one concubine.
 
I'm sorry but in the west a wife wasn't a mans property, neither was they in most of the Islamic world. They was subject to their husband, but they wasn't property.
Well, I was rather talking about the fact that quite a few men did treat their wives as if they were property or not much better, certainly not all of them, but those that did most often got away with it easily. Much depends on the man's character, if he loved his wife or not, and on her willpower to resist if needed. (And they were expected to obey their husbands, official property or not...)
Anyway, the main point was that a concubines (usually) is no more of a sex-slave than a wife is. A man often would have been in a politically arranged loveless marriage while seeking his romantic satisfaction with a concubine he couldn't legally marry. In short, a concubine where they officially exist is almost everything a wife is but with less inheritance rights for her and her children. And, usually, a lesser social status, which still would be better than that of a low ranking noble if you are the king's concubine.
The modern equivalent of a concubine is not a sex-slave forced into it, but either a mistress whom you love or your favourite high-class escort (often even with an exclusive contract.)
 
You all are forgetting that those old style concubines were in the day when one's biggest concern was feeding yourself, putting clothes on your back, and having a home. In those old days there were lots of those poor masses and the thought of being ones sex slave for money did appeal to many a young woman.

Nowadays women have advanced so much thru education and all they wouldnt put up with it.

I'm thinking of the movie "Memoris of a Geisha" where these girls were sold off by their father who was a poor fisherman around 1920 but those were the last of their kind.
 
Top