Of course, and I did not suggest you or anyone enter into such a relationship.

Your statement primitive, if understood in the original meaning of the word "primal" is perhaps accurate.  However, calling if a humanitarian disaster is a subjective emotional reaction, not an objective analysis of a situation that has both evolutionary and historic precedents.. Calling something a disaster is a value conclusion based on what research? Do you know any such marriages? Have you ever interviewed any women who are in such a relationship? From where are you drawing your conclusions?
The world consists of many different cultures.  It is not one big uniculture.  It may not be for me or you, but obviously it is for some.

Am I to understand you are saying long term extramarital affairs are preferable?  Can you see no situation where such a solution might be implemented?

In truth, there is disagreement among Islamic schools of jurisprudence regarding the issue.  I have offered an objective analysis of an alternative life style.  I suggest you clear your mind of prejudices and take an objective look.

You are outraged at the prospect of polygamy, but same sex marriage is OK? So, I wonder what your take on bisexual matrimony would be. 

Actually, I think a secular state should get out of the "marriage" business and let everyone have domestic partnerships based on who they want to be designated as their primary next of kin, which could be a sexual partner or best friend.  Go to whatever house of worship you choose if you feel you need to be "married".

The reality of the situation is marriage as it has evolved in Western cultures comes out of Christian marriage where the couple were united as one, and that one was the man. The female took the man´s name and all but ceased to exist as a separate entity.  She had no possessions.  Thankfully, things have evolved a great deal since that time.

Alameda, do you need me to interview people who were killed by others in order for you to have an ´objective´ argument against murder?

I suppose that when all a person knows is polygamy type of a relationship, she/he won´t have the capacity or courage to object it, but that does not mean that better forms of marriage have evolved in some parts of the world.

I guess you are not knowledgable in matters concerning jurisprudence....?...you have not ever heard of the concept of Justifiable Homicide? ...........Prima Facie........you see things are rarely so clear cut as you imagine.

Alameda, let me disagree with you. I perceive it the other way around, it´s not that after years of Christian dominance people started enjoying sex. I wrote it before - Church´s teachings were in most cases just theory, people in Europe have had lots of sex - sinful in the eyes of priests but they didn´t keep abstinence You said that it was the upper class that indulged in profligacy, I disagree. It´s enough to read literature from that period and you´ll see it was different. Villagers were usually very "productive" both in and outside marriage. Actually, I think it was the middle class that was most prude. Anyway, people in Europe have had sex ever since two people met outside caves. No religion changed it, what changed is that they can now be open about it without causing false embarrassment of neighbours.

Christine, thanks for the post, it shows exactly what pleasures of Islam stand for. I prefer the social rules here, at least I know my husband won´t have to marry somebody else to get a shag

What always amuses me is how Muslims always emphasise allegedly lower status of women in the western society in the past, at the same time bragging about high position of women in Islam. Taking your husband´s surname means you ceased to exist while being wife number three marks your position significantly. Also, we´ve had a few queens in Europe (unmarried ones or married but still being the ruling monarch) - again, sign of women´s low status. How many women in Muslim countries were leaders of their nations? If I´m not mistaken women can´t even be judges according to Qran...Christian women were to have sex with their husbands only and only for procreation. And it was the same for the husbands, they could have sex only with their wife. In Islam a man can have 4 wives (whose duty is to serve him sexually in return for material goods) and numerous mistresses if only he is just to them. Wow, a sign of respect! Also, I read somewhere that only a man can divorce a woman, if it´s the wife who wants to divorce, she has to ask her husband to divorce her. Again - how fair.

Alameda, you´re right, I´m glad the position of women in the west evolved. Or actually, it didn´t evolve, we fought for it to improve. And we still do in a way. I hope one day Muslim women will take care of their rights too

Alameda, this is your usual argumentative style, you use an exception as an argument for the rule. You´re not intellectually honest.

Who said that a pleasure marriage is allowed in Islam?

It appears she has found an obscure reference from a expat South African woman who writes under the name  Laura of Arabia

When asked:

-What do you think about the Arabs?
The Arabs are courteous, but they rarely socialize with non-Saudis, or non-Muslims. Some people live here for years, and never even meet a Saudi.

Who is she??? Well done you also found the same link as me . I used this link because it was the one i found ar the time, but have read many articules before.

 You tell me

Her information can be found at the link I posted.  She is a Western housewife with aspirations at being an author.  She spent a couple of years in Saudi, she can not speak Arabic and did not associate with Saudis.

There is no such thing as strictly a Pleasure Marriage in Islam.  The author was sensationalizing her article by using a provocative title.  The institution she is talking about it called mu´ta marriage.  It is allowed in Shia Islam, but forbidden in Sunni Islam.  It is a hotly debated topic, however what she discribed in her article is far beyond the bounds.

As Islam is a legalistic religion,  some people look for loopholes....

Oh really?

When, Where and How???