S
@EmpactWB Hi there, just wanted to let you know that there is historical/cultural precedence for polyandry (I'm a history nerd). So in areas with super scare resources you want to keep the population manageable and not have too many kids at once, lest you cause famine. So one woman would take more than one husband, which was a sort of natural birth control, since a woman could only have one pregnancy at a time. The second reason, besides this, is inheritance. Here in the west, that was fixed by only allowing the first born son to inherit, forcing any other sons to leave and find some other way to support themselves. In other societies (a decent chunk of them eastern) this problem was solved by having all the brothers marry the same woman, called fraternal polyandry. This way the property stayed within the family, but none of the sons were kicked out. Which again ties back into the whole scarcity thing, since this way you wouldn't be dividing land, and it would cut down sibling infighting. So there is a very good reason for polyandry, aside from an aristocratic thing or 'just cuz I can', for the same reason as polygyny (producing enough heirs for someone to inherit, or to ensure a competent heir inherits, if the first son is an idiot or a jerk or easily influenced) although interestingly it was for the exact opposite reasons as polygyny.
