Why Did Men Need Concubines? A Deep Dive into Historical Realities and Societal Constructs

I remember a conversation with an older gentleman, a history enthusiast, who recounted tales from his grandmother’s era in a distant, patriarchal society. He spoke of how men, especially those of means, often had multiple women in their lives: a primary wife, yes, but sometimes others—concubines—who resided within the household, each with specific roles and expectations. He wasn’t endorsing it, mind you, but rather describing a bygone era where societal norms were vastly different. He pondered aloud, “What drove these practices? Was it just power, or something deeper?” His question, years ago, sparked a personal fascination with understanding the complex tapestry of human relationships and societal structures that once made concubinage a prevalent and, in many cultures, an accepted institution.

To cut right to the chase, when we ask “Why did men need concubines?” the simple, direct answer for most historical contexts is that concubines served a multifaceted role, primarily rooted in the patriarchal structures of the time. They were seen as instrumental for ensuring lineage and heirs, particularly in cases of a wife’s infertility or the desire for more male offspring. Beyond procreation, concubines often functioned as symbols of a man’s wealth and social status, provided companionship and sexual gratification, and in some instances, even played a role in political alliances or domestic labor. It’s crucial to understand that this practice is overwhelmingly condemned and often illegal in modern societies, considered a profound violation of human rights and dignity. Our exploration here is purely historical, an attempt to comprehend the societal mechanics and motivations that allowed such arrangements to persist for centuries across various cultures, rather than to justify or endorse them today.

Understanding Concubinage: A Historical and Societal Lens

Before we delve into the motivations, it’s vital to clearly define what concubinage was, as it’s often misunderstood or conflated with modern concepts like “mistresses” or illicit affairs. Concubinage was a legally and socially recognized status, distinct from marriage, yet it still conferred certain rights and responsibilities, albeit often unequal ones, upon the woman and her children.

Defining Concubinage: More Than Just “Mistresses”

In many historical societies, a concubine wasn’t merely a man’s lover on the side. She was often a woman who lived in the same household as the man and his legal wife or wives, recognized by the community, and her children often held a legitimate, though sometimes secondary, claim to their father’s inheritance or social standing. This formal recognition is what primarily distinguished a concubine from a “mistress” in the modern sense, whose relationship is typically informal, often clandestine, and whose children generally have no legal claims.

Key characteristics of historical concubinage often included:

• Formal Recognition: Unlike a secret affair, the status of a concubine was generally known and accepted within the societal framework. While she lacked the full legal and social standing of a principal wife, her position was nonetheless defined.
• Subordinate Status: Concubines were almost universally of a lower social standing than the primary wife or wives. They often had fewer rights, less authority within the household, and their children might inherit less or have a lower status than those born to a legal wife.
• Procreative Function: A significant purpose of concubinage was often procreation, especially the production of male heirs. If a legal wife was barren or only bore daughters, a concubine could fulfill this vital societal function.
• Domestic Integration: Concubines typically resided within the patriarch’s household, sometimes in separate quarters, and were part of the domestic structure, contributing to household management, childcare, or other duties.
• Varying Legal Protections: While their status was subordinate, concubines often had more legal protection than an enslaved woman, and their children were typically considered free, though their specific rights varied wildly across different cultures and eras.

Understanding these distinctions is crucial because it highlights that concubinage was not simply about personal desire but was deeply interwoven with the legal, social, and economic fabric of historical societies.

The Historical Roots: When and Where Did It Flourish?

The practice of concubinage was remarkably widespread, appearing in various forms across numerous civilizations and continents. It wasn’t confined to a single region or belief system but emerged in response to universal human needs and societal pressures, albeit through different cultural lenses. We find evidence of it:

• Ancient China: Perhaps one of the most well-documented instances, concubinage (妾, qiè) was an integral part of elite households for millennia. Concubines were carefully selected, often for their beauty or skills, and their children, while subordinate to the Empress’s or primary wife’s offspring, were still considered legitimate members of the family line.
• Ancient Middle East: Societies from Mesopotamia to ancient Israel recognized concubinage. The Old Testament, for instance, provides several accounts of patriarchs having concubines (e.g., Abraham with Hagar, Jacob with Bilhah and Zilpah). These women often bore children who were integrated into the family, especially if the primary wife was unable to conceive.
• Roman Empire: While not identical to other forms, Roman society had “concubinatus,” a recognized but non-marital union, often with women of lower social standing. The children of such unions did not typically share the father’s legal status but were not necessarily illegitimate in the way children born out of casual affairs might be.
• Pre-Colonial Africa: Many African societies practiced various forms of polygyny, where a man could have multiple wives, but some also recognized secondary unions that could be akin to concubinage, often tied to labor, alliance, or status.
• Other Cultures: Traces of similar practices can be found in various European monarchies (though often less formally recognized within the household), pre-modern Japan, and parts of Southeast Asia, all with their own unique cultural nuances.

The prevalence of concubinage across such diverse cultures suggests it fulfilled certain fundamental, though now largely outdated, societal functions that monogamous marriage alone, as it was then defined, could not or was not expected to fulfill for men of status.

Primary Motivations: Why Did Men Traditionally Keep Concubines?

The motivations behind men taking concubines were seldom singular; they formed a complex web of social, economic, political, and personal factors. Dissecting these motivations offers a window into the values and priorities of past societies.

Lineage and Succession: The Imperative to Produce Heirs

Perhaps the most compelling and universally cited reason for concubinage was the absolute necessity of producing heirs, particularly male heirs, to continue the family line, inherit property, and maintain social standing. In many historical societies, a man’s legacy, wealth, and even spiritual well-being were inextricably linked to the perpetuation of his patrilineal line.

Consider the immense pressure placed upon a man, especially an elite or noble one, to have sons:

• Barrenness of the Primary Wife: If a man’s primary wife was unable to conceive, or could only bear daughters, concubines offered a culturally sanctioned solution. Divorce or repudiation of a wife for barrenness was often difficult, costly, or socially undesirable, especially if she came from a powerful family. A concubine could provide the much-needed heir without severing the primary marital ties.
• Risk Mitigation: Even with a fertile wife, the infant and child mortality rates were astronomically high in pre-modern times. Having additional children through concubines was a way to “hedge bets” against the loss of heirs due to disease, accident, or war, ensuring the survival of the family name.
• Desire for More Male Offspring: In societies with strong male primogeniture (inheritance by the firstborn son), having multiple sons could provide a buffer, ensuring at least one would survive to adulthood and be capable of inheriting. More sons also meant more hands for labor, more potential warriors, or more individuals to serve in various capacities, enhancing the family’s power.

From my perspective, this drive for lineage was so profound that it often superseded individual preferences or romantic notions. It was a societal imperative, a duty to one’s ancestors and descendants. A man who failed to produce heirs risked his family line dying out, a fate often considered worse than death itself.

In such a scenario, a man might undertake a series of steps if his primary wife was unable to bear children:

1. Consultation: Initially, there might be consultations with family elders, religious figures, or even traditional healers to understand the situation and seek remedies for infertility.
2. Prayer and Ritual: Religious and cultural practices aimed at promoting fertility would often be undertaken by both the husband and wife.
3. Consideration of Adoption (less common for primary heir): While adoption existed, for the continuation of the direct bloodline and inheritance, it was often seen as a less ideal solution than biological progeny.
4. Family Discussions about Concubinage: The husband and his family would typically discuss the necessity of taking a concubine, often with the wife’s reluctant or resigned acceptance, as it was for the “greater good” of the family.
5. Selection of a Concubine: A suitable woman would be chosen, often from a lower social class or as a captive, slave, or a gift, to enter the household.
6. Formal Integration: She would be formally brought into the household, her status recognized, and her role as a potential mother of heirs understood by all.

This systematic approach underscores how deeply ingrained the need for heirs was in the societal fabric.

Social Status and Display of Wealth

Beyond the practical need for heirs, concubines also functioned as powerful symbols of a man’s wealth, status, and power. In many societies, the ability to support multiple dependents, especially women who did not contribute directly to economic production in the same way as laborers, was a clear indicator of affluence.

“In aristocratic households across various empires, the number of women, including wives and concubines, under a man’s roof was often a direct measure of his prestige. It demonstrated not only his wealth to feed and house them but also his influence to acquire them.”

A large retinue of women, particularly those chosen for their beauty or accomplishments, was a visible manifestation of a man’s command over resources. It signaled to the community:

• Economic Prosperity: Maintaining multiple women and their offspring required significant economic resources. It was a living, breathing testament to a man’s financial prowess.
• Social Prominence: Only men of a certain social standing could engage in concubinage without inviting social censure. For emperors, kings, and powerful nobles, a large harem or household of concubines was an expected component of their regal dignity and a symbol of their extensive power base.
• Personal Power and Influence: The ability to command the lives of several women, integrating them into his household, underscored a man’s patriarchal authority and control over his domestic sphere. It conveyed a sense of dominance not only over his family but often within the broader community.

From the opulent palaces of Chinese emperors with their thousands of concubines to the more modest, yet still significant, households of wealthy merchants, the presence of concubines was a common signal of having “arrived.” It wasn’t merely about personal gratification; it was a societal performance, a display of one’s position on the social ladder.

Political Alliances and Diplomatic Tools

In the grand chessboard of historical politics, women were frequently used as pawns to forge alliances, solidify treaties, and secure peace. While primary wives often fulfilled the highest-level diplomatic roles, concubines also had their place in this intricate game.

• Gifts and Tributes: Powerful rulers might demand or be offered concubines as tribute from defeated enemies or vassal states. This not only provided the victor with women but also symbolized the subjugation of the other party and their integration into the victor’s sphere of influence.
• Sealing Minor Alliances: While a primary wife might be taken from an equally powerful noble family to secure a major alliance, concubines could be taken from lesser noble families or even powerful commoner families to solidify loyalty or secure localized political support without committing to a full marital alliance.
• Hostages and Guarantors: In some instances, women given as concubines could serve as de facto hostages, ensuring the good behavior of their natal families. Their presence in the powerful man’s household was a constant reminder of the alliance and its underlying power dynamics.

From this vantage point, concubines weren’t just individuals; they were strategic assets, integral to the geopolitical maneuverings of their time. Their lives, often without much personal choice, were woven into the larger fabric of statecraft and power consolidation.

Companionship, Pleasure, and Domestic Labor

While the more “practical” reasons of lineage and status often dominated, the personal dimensions of companionship, pleasure, and domestic support were undoubtedly significant motivations for men to keep concubines.

• Companionship and Affection: In arranged marriages, emotional connection was not always the primary goal. Concubines could offer a different kind of companionship, perhaps more attuned to a man’s personal preferences or intellectual interests, or simply provide a wider array of personalities within the household.
• Sexual Gratification: While wives were expected to provide sexual companionship, societal norms, religious strictures, or a wife’s health/desires might limit this. Concubines offered additional avenues for sexual expression and pleasure, often without the same social or religious constraints that applied to a primary wife.
• Domestic Labor and Household Management: Depending on the social standing of the concubine and the household, concubines often contributed to the domestic workload. This could range from managing specific aspects of the household, raising children, providing entertainment (e.g., music, dance), or assisting the primary wife in various duties. In more modest settings, a concubine might effectively be an additional pair of hands for daily chores.
• Emotional Support and Variety: A large household with multiple women could offer a man a diverse array of emotional support and intellectual stimulation. It could also alleviate the pressure on a single wife to fulfill all of a man’s emotional and physical needs.

It’s important here to avoid romanticizing or trivializing the position of concubines. While some might have found comfort or even power within their roles, their lives were largely dictated by the man and the primary wife. However, from the man’s perspective, these personal benefits undoubtedly played a role in the continuation of the practice.

Addressing “Monogamy” in Historical Contexts

It’s easy to project modern sensibilities onto historical practices, but understanding how “monogamy” was conceived in the past is crucial. For many historical societies, particularly those that allowed concubinage, strict, exclusive monogamy for men was not the universal or even aspirational ideal. While a man might have only one *legal wife*, his sexual and domestic life was often not exclusively tied to her.

• Societal Double Standards: Many cultures upheld a strict expectation of fidelity for wives, often with severe penalties for transgression, while simultaneously permitting or overlooking men’s sexual relationships outside of marriage, whether with concubines, enslaved women, or prostitutes. This fundamental double standard allowed concubinage to flourish.
• Legal Definitions of Marriage: The legal definition of marriage often specified who could be a primary heir, how property was passed down, and which women held senior positions. Concubinage existed in a legal grey area, or a clearly subordinate one, allowing men to expand their “family” without violating the strictures of their primary marriage.
• Polygyny vs. Concubinage: While distinct, these practices sometimes overlapped. Polygyny (a man having multiple wives) was permitted in some societies (e.g., Islam, parts of Africa), where all wives held relatively equal, though still subordinate to the husband, status. Concubinage, by contrast, explicitly involved a hierarchical structure where the concubine was of lower status than the primary wife. However, both allowed men to have multiple female partners.

From an analytical standpoint, it becomes evident that the concept of exclusive, lifelong partnership for men, as enshrined in modern Western monogamy, was not a universal historical norm. Concubinage served as a structural mechanism to reconcile the societal need for male heirs and status symbols with often-limited choices within primary marriage, all while maintaining patriarchal control.

The Lived Experience: Perspectives Within the System

To truly grasp the dynamics of concubinage, it’s helpful to consider the viewpoints of the individuals involved, recognizing that their experiences were shaped by their roles, status, and the specific cultural context.

The Man’s Perspective: Power, Responsibility, and Expectation

From the man’s perspective, especially if he was powerful or wealthy, maintaining concubines was often seen not just as a privilege but also as a responsibility and an expectation. He was the patriarch, the head of a complex household, and his decisions carried immense weight.

• Fulfillment of Duty: As discussed, providing heirs was a paramount duty. If his primary wife could not fulfill this, taking a concubine was often presented as fulfilling a societal and familial obligation.
• Maintenance of Status: His concubines were part of his public image. Their presence, particularly if they were beautiful or talented, reflected positively on his standing.
• Household Management: A large household, including concubines and their children, meant significant resources were consumed. The man bore the ultimate responsibility for their sustenance, protection, and the maintenance of order within the complex domestic structure. This could be a considerable burden alongside the perceived benefits.
• Emotional and Physical Gratification: While structured, these relationships provided companionship, emotional support, and sexual satisfaction. The man had a wider array of choices for personal solace and pleasure than if he were confined to a single marital relationship.
• Potential for Conflict: Managing rivalries between concubines, or between the primary wife and concubines, was a constant challenge. Maintaining harmony within a multi-woman household required astute leadership and often, a firm hand.

In essence, the man’s role was one of ultimate authority and immense responsibility. His “need” for concubines was framed by the societal expectations placed upon him to perpetuate his line, display his wealth, and manage a complex domestic domain, all while fulfilling his personal desires within the confines of what was culturally permissible.

The Concubine’s Perspective: Agency, Vulnerability, and Survival

The life of a concubine was undeniably one of inherent vulnerability and limited agency, yet it wasn’t entirely without potential for personal gain or influence. Their experiences varied drastically based on how they entered the household, their social origins, and their children’s success.

• Precarious Status: Often, a concubine had fewer rights than a legal wife. She could be dismissed, sold, or demoted, especially if she failed to produce male heirs or fell out of favor. Her status was largely dependent on the man’s favor and the primary wife’s tolerance.
• Social Mobility: For women from lower social classes, becoming a concubine to a powerful man could represent a significant step up in status and security compared to their original circumstances. It might offer escape from poverty, access to education, or a chance for their children to achieve greater things.
• Motherhood and Influence: Bearing a son, especially the first son or the only surviving son, could elevate a concubine’s standing within the household and secure her future. Her son’s success could be her own path to power and respect.
• Rivalry and Competition: Life in a multi-woman household was often characterized by intense rivalry, particularly among concubines vying for the man’s attention and for the advancement of their children. The primary wife could also be a source of tension or oppression.
• Lack of Autonomy: Concubines rarely had a say in their own fate. They were typically acquired or chosen by the man or his family, and their lives were then largely dictated by the household rules.

One can’t help but observe how profoundly the lives of these women were shaped by the prevailing patriarchal system. While some might have achieved a degree of comfort or influence, their fundamental lack of self-determination stands in stark contrast to modern ideals of individual rights. For many, it was a strategy for survival, a choice dictated by limited options rather than personal desire.

The Wife’s Perspective: Navigating a Complex Household

The primary wife’s experience in a household with concubines was complex, fraught with both challenges and, occasionally, a degree of acceptance or even collaboration. Her position was senior, but not without its own pressures.

• Threat to Position and Security: The presence of concubines, particularly those who bore sons, could be a direct threat to her own children’s inheritance or her status within the household. This often led to jealousy and conflict.
• Household Management: In many cultures, the primary wife was responsible for overseeing the entire household, including the concubines and their children. This placed her in a position of authority, but also added significant managerial burden and potential for domestic strife.
• Acceptance as Duty: For many wives, accepting a husband’s concubines was seen as a duty, particularly if she could not produce male heirs. It was a sacrifice for the greater good of the family line and a demonstration of her loyalty and understanding of societal expectations.
• Support and Collaboration: In some instances, concubines might serve as assistants or companions to the primary wife, especially in large, wealthy households. They could help manage the children, perform domestic duties, and even provide emotional support, creating a more cooperative dynamic, though often still unequal.
• Maintaining Honor: A wife’s honor was often tied to her ability to secure her husband’s lineage. If she couldn’t, facilitating the introduction of a concubine could, paradoxically, preserve her own honor by ensuring the family’s continuation.

From my own contemplation of these historical dynamics, it’s clear that the primary wife’s position was one of immense social power, yet also significant personal constraint. She was expected to endure, manage, and often, actively participate in a system that could be emotionally taxing, all while upholding her own societal duties.

The Decline and Modern Condemnation of Concubinage

The practice of concubinage, once so pervasive, began a significant decline with the advent of modernity, driven by profound shifts in societal values, legal frameworks, and global human rights movements.

Shifting Societal Norms and Legal Frameworks

The 19th and 20th centuries witnessed a gradual but decisive move away from concubinage, fueled by several interconnected factors:

• Rise of Individual Rights and Women’s Rights Movements: The Enlightenment and subsequent movements for individual liberty increasingly challenged hierarchical systems that subjugated women. The idea that women should have autonomy over their bodies and marital choices gained traction, making practices like concubinage untenable.
• Emphasis on Monogamous Marriage: Western legal and cultural norms, often influenced by Christian ideals of monogamy, gained global influence through colonialism and modernization. As countries adopted Western-style legal codes, monogamy became the sole legal form of marriage, outlawing polygyny and concubinage.
• Medical Advancements: Advances in medicine reduced child mortality rates, lessening the existential pressure to produce a vast number of children to ensure the survival of an heir. Scientific understanding of infertility also shifted, moving away from blame and towards medical solutions.
• Economic Changes: Industrialization and the shift from agrarian economies reduced the economic incentive for large households and numerous children as labor. Women’s increasing participation in the workforce also altered their economic dependence on men.
• Legal Reforms: Many nations explicitly outlawed concubinage. For instance, in China, the practice was abolished with the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949 as part of a broader push for gender equality. Similar reforms occurred across various Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries throughout the 20th century.

The phasing out of concubinage was not always a smooth process; it often involved significant social upheaval and resistance, but the tide of modernity, with its emphasis on individual dignity and legal equality, proved inexorable.

Ethical and Human Rights Considerations Today

In the contemporary world, the practice of concubinage is overwhelmingly viewed as unethical, a violation of fundamental human rights, and often illegal. From an ethical standpoint, it conflicts deeply with modern values:

• Equality and Non-Discrimination: Concubinage, by its very definition, established a hierarchical relationship based on gender and often social status, inherently discriminating against women and those of lower birth. Modern ethics demand equality regardless of gender or origin.
• Consent and Bodily Autonomy: Historically, concubines often had little to no say in their roles. They might be bought, gifted, or forced into the arrangement. Modern human rights unequivocally emphasize free, informed consent in all relationships and an individual’s right to bodily autonomy.
• Dignity and Respect: Treating individuals as property or as means to an end (e.g., for producing heirs or displaying status) fundamentally undermines their human dignity. The commodification of women, which concubinage often entailed, is incompatible with contemporary respect for individual worth.
• Prevention of Exploitation: While not all concubine relationships involved overt abuse, the inherent power imbalance created fertile ground for exploitation. Modern legal systems strive to prevent such imbalances from leading to the abuse of vulnerable individuals.

Today, any practice resembling concubinage is generally categorized under human trafficking, sexual exploitation, or other forms of abuse, and is vigorously prosecuted. The world has largely moved to a consensus that such relationships are not merely outdated but fundamentally unjust.

Reflecting on the Past: Lessons for the Present

Understanding “why men needed concubines” in historical contexts is not about legitimizing the practice but rather about gaining a deeper insight into the forces that shaped human societies for millennia. From my perspective, looking back, it becomes clear how profoundly intertwined social, economic, and political factors were with personal relationships.

This historical lens allows us to appreciate the radical shifts that have occurred in human rights and gender equality. It highlights how far we’ve come in recognizing the inherent dignity of all individuals, regardless of gender or social standing. The demise of concubinage is a testament to the evolving human conscience and the global pursuit of justice and equality. It reminds us that societal norms are not immutable; they can and do change, often for the better, driven by a growing understanding of what it means to be truly human and free.

Frequently Asked Questions About Concubinage

What is the difference between a concubine and a mistress?

The primary distinction between a concubine and a mistress lies in their social and legal recognition, particularly in historical contexts. A concubine was a woman who, in many ancient and pre-modern societies, had a recognized, though often subordinate, status within a man’s household. She typically lived with the man and his legal wife or wives, and her children were often considered legitimate, albeit with potentially reduced inheritance rights or social standing compared to those born to a principal wife. Her position was often formally acknowledged by the family and the community, even if she lacked the full legal and social protections of a wife.

In contrast, a mistress, especially in the modern sense, generally refers to a woman with whom a man has an extramarital affair that is typically clandestine and lacks formal social or legal recognition. The relationship is often informal, and any children born from such a union usually have no legal claims to their father’s name, inheritance, or social status. While historical mistresses certainly existed, they generally operated outside the formal structures that defined concubinage. Concubinage was part of the societal framework, a recognized role, whereas a mistress relationship typically challenged or existed outside of that framework.

Was concubinage always about sex?

While sexual intimacy was almost always a component of concubinage, it was rarely the sole or even primary reason for its existence within a broader societal context. As discussed, the practice served multifaceted purposes that extended far beyond simple physical gratification. The imperative to produce heirs, particularly male heirs, was a dominant motivation, especially when a primary wife was barren or only bore daughters. In such cases, a concubine’s ability to bear children for the family line was often paramount, and her sexual role was secondary to this reproductive function.

Furthermore, concubines often fulfilled roles related to social status, displaying a man’s wealth and power. Their presence contributed to the prestige of a large, affluent household. They could also serve political functions, solidifying alliances or acting as symbols of tribute. In some instances, concubines provided companionship, domestic labor, or entertainment, acting as part of the man’s extended domestic support system. So, while sexual relations were inherent to the nature of the relationship, reducing concubinage solely to “about sex” oversimplifies a complex historical institution that addressed a wide array of social, economic, and cultural needs and pressures.

Were concubines considered slaves?

The status of concubines varied significantly across different cultures and eras, and it is crucial not to conflate them universally with slaves, though some concubines certainly originated from slavery. In many societies, a concubine was a free woman, perhaps from a lower social class, who entered into a recognized, albeit subordinate, relationship with a man. She might have come from a poor family who arranged the union for economic security, or she might have been a “secondary wife” in a culture that permitted such arrangements without the full legal status of a primary wife.

However, it is also true that in various historical contexts, enslaved women could be taken as concubines. If an enslaved woman bore a child by her master, she might gain a higher status within the household, and her children were often considered free, or at least of higher status than pure slaves, with potential inheritance rights. This was a pathway to emancipation for some. Yet, not all enslaved women were concubines, and not all concubines were slaves. The key distinction often lay in whether the woman herself had legal personhood and certain rights (however limited) and if her children were free. While often vulnerable and lacking autonomy, a concubine’s status was typically, though not always, distinct from outright chattel slavery.

Does concubinage still exist today?

In its historical, legally and socially recognized form, concubinage is largely obsolete and condemned by international law and human rights standards. Most modern nations have outlawed such practices, classifying them as illegal and unethical. The practice of keeping concubines, with their subordinate status and lack of autonomy, directly violates contemporary principles of gender equality, individual freedom, and bodily autonomy.

However, it is important to acknowledge that exploitative relationships that share some superficial resemblances to historical concubinage, such as forms of human trafficking, forced marriage, domestic servitude, or sexual exploitation, tragically persist in various parts of the world. These modern practices are not “concubinage” in the historical sense of a recognized social institution, but rather severe abuses of human rights. They are illegal, morally reprehensible, and actively combated by governments and international organizations worldwide. So, while the formal institution has largely vanished, the underlying power imbalances and vulnerabilities that enabled it in the past can, unfortunately, manifest in different, equally harmful forms of exploitation today, which the global community strives to eradicate.