WILD COOT – Let’s do the maths
Once upon a time, men used to live to be over 700 years old. In those happy days, even in their 600th year, men were still procreating, “whichin” it was believed, or better yet ordained, that men should procreate until they die, “whichin” if Mr Hal Austin’s figures of a fertility rate of 2.1 in Barbados are correct, men have some catching up to do (or some persuading).Women on the other hand, according to scientific evidence, stop procreating around age 45 – a rather small window of fertility. Good gracious, don’t you see the hand of nature there! That is why once upon a time men were allowed copious wives.King Solomon had 700 wives and 299 concubines. The Bible does not tell us precisely how he managed, but I am sure that his fertility rate was better than men in Barbados whose individual tally is no more than 30 spread over a large field.If I am not mistaken, there had to be a multiplicity of “begatting”, in order to outfit the earth in earlier days. Nowadays, with the earth population reaching unmanageable proportions, the fertility rate of man is reduced by his reduced lifespan. But there are valiant men who seek to make hay while the sun shines in their three score and ten. The book of Genesis is replete with examples of men who did not have to be in a hurry. Can it be that their society was more orderly than our own? How come in the world today half of the men can legally have several wives and the other half confined to only one? Perhaps that is why big countries like those of Europe, the Americas and Barbados will have a National Insurance problem, because of their fertility rate. I am not discussing other problems, as I will be six feet deep when those manifest themselves.But getting back to the mathematical conundrum, why is a woman age 90 not able to bear a child and a man age 90 able to produce a healthy bouncing baby boy (or girl)? If the two lived together, is he to attempt procreation in vain? Is it not mathematically correct for him to seek a younger bride – say 25 years of age, so that his seed can be vibrantly and healthily exploited? Is it not ordained?I am certain that I am not the only one thinking that way. Recent events unearthed a man who thinks that way. Unlike the majority of “wutless” and nasty men (including me) who spawn indiscriminately all over Barbados; who walk away from the pregnant mass as soon as it is showing, this gentleman fulfilled his obligations (and his desires) by marrying both of them. He went legal. And for his righteousness he was legally condemned. Does not our society have things back to front?
All of us who prospect around Barbados and its environs, stalking women and lusting for their “bumpers” (please excuse me, Mr Farley), all of those men who boast of eight or ten illegal relationships are roaming free to loose their gallivanting ways on society, but the one who does it legally is sent to prison and subsequently fined. There is something wrong here. Common law relationship is legally acknowledged in Barbados, so a man can have several common law relationships legally. Marriage is legally accepted if confined to one woman. Should not a common law “marriage” be also legally confined to one woman? Should not the common practice of several common law relationships warrant imprisonment on remand, embarrassment in the newspapers and a hefty $5 000 fine or 18 months? Have we not established a precedent in Barbados? It is now up to the marshals to be vigilant and bring these heinous common law criminals we have in Barbados before the courts. We are really seeing signs and wonders. Soon men will be marrying men and women marrying women legally, and their present homosexual, common law, status will become legal and they will be imprisoned or fined for having two common law relationships. Lord come for “yuh” world!• Harry Russell is a retired banker.