Polygamy/Polyandry: Why not?

As long as all adults are consenting, why does western society generally frown upon it?

(OT: King David had a shitload of wives; I'm surprised bush, falwell, et al aren't trying to get it legalized.)

Anyway, I'm finally off to watch Run, Lola, Run. Looking forward to being enlightnened by all o' youse.

I've never gotten a good anwser to the question.

It stems from the belief that the traditional family is an important institution to keeping our society functioning productively and that monogomous relationships are the foundation of the stable family structure.

It's also very expensive to upkeep more than one woman.

Excuse me while I put on my flame-suit.

Smoking cigarettes, driving SUVs,allowing legalized gambling or prostitution could be argued as negative things to many in society's eyes. The problem is not what miffs the majority in society but rather to what degree people in general are hypocrites on a variety of matters. Really what we are discussing is not the problem of plural marriage in general but the problems arising out of religious based pedantry and the the inability of minors to engage in decisions of true free will. Any non-ideal legal or living arrangement made by an adult of free will could seemingly be dissolved in a manner similar to more traditional marriage made by two individuals.

Polygamy might work if present wives had veto power over another woman entering the family system and if all involved were adults capable of making informed legal decisions.

Alas, as it's practiced today, new wives are brought in without the permission of the present wives, and are generally underage girls who themselves are from polygamous families. Since the type of man who practices this sort of polygamy generally can't support one wife and kids, most of these families end up on public assistance.

Polyandry has been practiced recently only in Nepal, as I understand it, as a way for families with more than one son to pass their property intact to all the sons and then to whatever sons the one wife produces. With all the husbands brothers, there is no question of admitting new males to the family with or without the permission of the men already there.

If all participants are adults, I generally have no problem with it, alhtough I doubt I'd have chosen it for myself. I did know one polygamous family some years ago, though. The women finally decided they'd had enough and tossed the husband out on his bum and continued to live with each other and raise their children together.

in the US, no one has been convicted of it since 1958. If a case ever made it to the Supreme Court the laws would probably be declared unconstitutional. This very well could be why the laws aren't enforced.

... in Utah of all places.

that's why they went after him.

in this day and age, it is hard enough to support a small family. i guess you could have a lot of breadwinners, and make a go. but in utah, most of the later wives are on the dole. where men actually have to prove they can support the extra wives, there are at least practical limits.

and polyandry ain't never gonna be popular. men just can't hack it. they are already insecure enough about the parentage of their children. unless men start having the babies that ain't goin away. (i suspect that is the bottom line of homophobia. 100% one way or the other sexual orientation is a rarity. one nighters happen.)

but mostly, a surplus of unattached males destabilizes a society. always has, always will.

all that said, tho, i don't think making it illegal ever has or ever will prevent it. i think it is part of our nature.

not be involved when it comes to contracts between consenting adults. I find it ridiculous that we as a people need to have the Governments approval to get married. We should also get rid of the tax breaks for marriage and children, if there is no tax break then the Government can operate at a lower cost and everyone can feel the benefits of lower taxes.

The government should treat adults who wish to set up a household together as a "corporate entity" for purposes of inheritance, dissolution, and power of attorney. The government's job would then be limited to enforcing the contract the people have made, and would have no interest in who's sleeping with whom or how.

It would also decouple the religious idea of "marriage" from the legal idea of "union," ending the gay-marriage debate.

Tucker

but he just won't listen.

It puts a wife in a position of being only one of several, without the promise of eternal, exclusive respect from her husband.

(And it's almost always multiple wives, isn't it. I can't say I've ever heard of a woman with multiple husbands.)

not if the situation were consensual and among adults, and the wives had veto power over bringing new women into the family.

Think of it this way: there would always be companionship, help with household chores, adequate help to supervise and/or educate the children, child care for the women who had careers. It could be an ideal situation for some women.

See my earlier post for polyandry.

I recently read a book about women in the Muslim world. Polygamy is legal in most of the Arab Muslim countries and many wives are unhappy about it. Often the husband favors the newer younger wife. Even if she might be consenting at first, as he favors the other woman and favors her children more than the first wife, she might change her mind. If she divorces him then will she get half the propert or only a third?

Lots of women voluntarily enter into situations that are not good for them. In the long term, it is a bad deal for the women and that's why society should frown on it.

I'd rather see Donald Trump marry with three wives than see him do it one at a time.

lol, that would be MY luck. :silly:

Yeah, to have one husband would be nice, but to deal with multiple mother in laws would be the ultimate torture.

If rich, or attractive men were allowed to have dozens of wives there would not be enough women to go around.

Get enough poor, ugly dudes angry and amazingly it changes to a moral issue.

objection is that they have so many kids.

The practice of it too often involves minors. I could go off into a rant about the fringe-Mormons, but I'm sure that everyone is aware of their practices. (the fringe-extremist, child abusers, that is)

If it's truly a matter between consenting adults, I don't have a problem with polygamy. *I* could never be a part of that and I think it's a bad idea, but I'm not one to deny a person their own brand of happiness, provided that nobody is hurt.

is that it winds up with a few men monopolizing all the women, leaving the rest without wives. It's not very conducive to a stable social structure.

....on a long-term basis in any stable society. Yes, most of the Muslim world accepts it, but in most of the Muslim world, women have about as much legal standing as my bedroom slippers. I can't think of a single group that practices polygamy where women aren't treated as chattel. And most of the places where it's practiced can hardly be categorized as 'stable societies' on many levels.

The Mormons talk a good game when they're interviewed on TV, but in reality, the women in those relationships aren't much better off, either. They have little, if any, final say about just about anything.

Beyond that, it's difficult enough to maintain a relationship long-term between just two adults. Adding more people into the mix, with all the inherant potential for competition, rivalries and jealousy, just isn't going to make it any easier. Someone always winds up being the 'odd person out'. Sooner or later, it almost always breaks down.

While I'm not convinced one way or the other that human beings are necessarily made for monogamy, I've seen nothing that convinces me that we're suited to simultaneous long-term relationships with more than one person at a time, either.

but I see nothing wrong with it as long as all parties are consenting adults assuming we are talking about "pure" polyamory.

By this I do not mean the type of polygamy that is commonly thought of in Mormon or Arabic tradition, but the kind where more than 2 people decide to live together in love.

I guess personally, if someone is in love with someone else and they are adults, who am I to say what is right or wrong?

pros - more of a family structure in terms of sharing duties, costs, and emotional base, also potentially reduces adultery.

cons - potential for jealousy and related issues/problems within family group.

I look at it this way - you may be in a relationship with someone, yet to think you will never notice another human being is kind of ridiculous. As long as all parties are up front with each other about their feelings, does it hurt society? In this age of dual-income parents, would it help to have a third party to help with home matters? This does not have to be a man with 2 wives of course, but whatever arrangement the parties involved agree upon.

A & E had a two hour documentary about polygamy earlier this afternoon. The thing I disagree with is that the men can have as many wives as they want. The women can't have more than one husband. The only problem with more than one husband is the need to DNA test the children so the actual father is known.

there is no reason it would have to remain that way. The antiquated polygamy of husbands with multiple wives where the women had little to no rights is not the same as the basic concept of Polygamy.

As far as I am concerned, as long as all parties were consenting and treated as equals, I can't see any problems other than the ones which will exist in any marriage or other group dynamics.

The benefits would be fairly obvious, especially as the cost of living continues to outgrow the ability of a couple to live and raise a family. Also, as our modern culture continues to strip us of our humanity, we seldom come into intimate contact (I do not limit this to sexually intimate, but just close and comfortable) with each other, something which we need as a species to be mentally healthy.

For examples, look at the health benefits of having a partner or even having pets - other beings you can be at ease with - and contrast that with the growing amount of stress and pharmacological help people require.

n/t

Ergo, it would never happen.

There are all different kinds of poly relationships, many occur because some involved are bisexual. People should be able to do what they want, it's a free country.

For those interested in more information:

Polyamory

Spiritual Polyamory


The Ethical Slut

Frankly, the idea has always intrigued me, and in the past I've considered it in my own relationships as a method for dealing with differences between partners (e.g., a much, much stronger libido, differing interests in childrearing). I think these relationships are more difficult inherently because there are three egos and minds involved, but they're not impossible.

but wasn't a lot of murder involved with the practice as well as forced marraiges of child brides?

My reading is sketchy but IIRC covered wagons with women learned to give the Mormons a wide berth.

Those brides come from somewhere and without wars to reduce the male population ............. you do the math.

Also, I don't lump Heinleinesque group marriages under the category of polygamy.

Where do I begin?

*Lots of lonely guys
*A few men with big egos hogging many wives
*Jealous women who don't get enough attention
*Competition among the wives
*Child brides & arranged marriages
*Embarrassed children (the poor kids should be embarrassed of their sick families!)

Plus, it's just gross.
In other words, it's called "sloppy seconds".

Please don't mistake your personal tastes for universal mandates. That's what the right-wingers do when they condemn homosexuality because "it's gross."

As for the other points, have you ever known any real-life poly relationships (the ones you see on Jerry Springer don't count)? I have, and it's not at all what you describe. Let's go on a point-by-point basis here:

*Lots of lonely guys

How is that "caused" by polygamy?

*A few men with big egos hogging many wives

This implies that women are a *resource* that can be "hogged" or shared, rather than people with individual thoughts, feelings, and the right to say no. And I notice you don't mention the possibility of women "hogging" many husbands.

*Jealous women who don't get enough attention

In many polyamorous relationships, the number of women is equal to the number of men. In others, the number of men is greater than the number of women. In still others, there is a lesbian woman, a bi woman, and a straight man. In others..and so on, and so on. Polyamorous relationships are each unique, and there's no reason to expect that women will be jealous (or that they will be more jealous than the men).

*Competition among the wives

Why do you assume this will happen?

*Child brides & arranged marriages

Now, That's Just Dumb. What has polyamory--the decisions of consenting adults--have to do with child brides or arranged marriages?

*Embarrassed children (the poor kids should be embarrassed of their sick families!)

That's like saying gay people shouldn't adopt because the kids will be embarrassed. Or interracial couples shouldn't have kids because the kids would be embarrassed. Or fat people should not have kids, the kids would be embarrassed. And so on, and so on.

I think you should inform yourself about other people's families before deciding their families are "gross."

Tucker

.

....should be legalized and a recognized form of marriage. Of course, there are jackasses who can't handle relationships, monogamous or poly--whateverrous, so we'd still have that problem, but I know some poly households that would love to have the legalities (wills, insurance, inheritances, etc.) in some sort of sensible legal order, but our society and legal/social systems don't allow for it. It's a pain in the ass for these people.

and it drives me NUTS to see people claiming that it "never works" or "always exploits women" when all they know about is stereotypical views of nasty old men with harems of 14-year-old wives. Yes, that is one reality. It may even still be the dominant reality. But that, in my view, is CAUSED by making poly relationships illegal. Legal, properly regulated polygamy - which, by the way, means "many spouses" - multiple wives is polygyny, not polygamy, I hate when that gets misused - would prohibit child marriage, forced marriage, any form of involuntary servitude.

I know MANY, MANY people who consider themselves married to more than one person. The law doesn't sanction it, and most of their neighbors and coworkers don't know about it. Some live in communal marriages, some are in triads or V's or quads - some are the hub of a large wheel, with ancillary relationships besides the primary, permanent arrangements. MANY people are VERY successful over the long term in poly relationships. Chances are that you know some of them. You just don't KNOW you know them - because it isn't societally sanctioned, and it's something people keep quiet about, especially anyone with vindictive ex-spouses.

Please, please, don't generalize from media stereotypes of the few to paint all poly people with the same broad brush. Every person's relationships are unique. Saying that all poly relationships are abusive to women because there are such things as fundy Mormons who forcibly "marry" little girls (which is disgusting) is not that different from saying that all heterosexual marriages are inherently abusive because some men beat their wives.

Please, please do not assume you know everything about poly when, in fact, you probably don't even realize that you already know people living in poly relationships.

And yes, I know polyamory is not polygamy - but that's only because they won't let our relationships have legal status.

Exactly. I have been in polyamorous relationships myself. Though mine were shorter ones, not on the house-and-kid-sharing level, I do know a few people in permanent poly families.

Number of partners has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a relationship is unhealthy, coercive, or abusive. Period.

Realize also a lot of our ideas about what is desirable in a relationship that seem deeply ingrained and "hard-wired" are actually cultural. I remember reading an account from a woman who was doing some scientific research in an African region (don't remember where exactly) that was still very culturally traditional. She got to be friendly with some of the women of the local tribe, and upon learning that she was her husband's only wife, the women were horrified and felt so sorry for her. "Who helps with the children?" "Who helps you cook?" "Who do you talk to?" "Aren't you lonely?" The idea of living without that sort of familial sisterly relationship and communal distribution of responsibility seemed as "gross" and upsetting to them as the idea of sharing a husband with several other women might be to a woman of our culture.

Is either view "wrong"?

In my experience, there are people who are happiest in a monogamous dyadic relationship and there are people who are better suited to other forms, whether it's a committed closed triad, an "open marriage" or something else. Don't assume the 'assumed' way is the only way.

As has been pointed out, none of this has anything to do with de facto sexual slavery, child abuse, women as chattel (in most of the poly relationships I've known about, the women are *very* assertive about what they do and don't want), neglect, etcetera. Those are patriarchal abuses that can and do happen in any kind of relationship.

then I wouldn't care. Just like you said, if everyone involved were consenting adults, then what they do is their business, not mine. I would personally go insane living with that many people, but that's just me. :)

I have no personal interest. I wouldn't mind a little help around the house but I really have no desire to share LeftyDad. I don't need a co-wife, I need a paid cleaning lady. However, I know people with stable poly relationships. Thier kids (who are my age) came out fine. While I have no persoanl interest I see no reason to condemn thier relationships to illegitimacy and sometimes secrecy.

I don't think government ought to be in the business of approving relationships, but as long as it does so any permutation of consensual adult relationships ought to have equal standing.

Child brides, welfare cheating and spousal abuse are already illegal and do occur in two-person marriages, so I'm not sure what that objection is all about. One just needs to enfoce the existing laws to prevent most of those situations.