Is Polygamy Really Wrong?

[Dunkelheit]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

True, not limited to. But in the history of the world and in the world as it is today the "one man, several women" scenario appears to be on the order of 90% of such relationships.

Cite? My experience in the poly community says otherwise, "in the world as it is today" and outside of the patriarchial fringe religious groups that have dominated the issue but do not make up the bulk of the poly population. What I see most commonly is that Jack and Jill are a couple and each of them has one, two, or more other partners, or various other combinations of male and female partners similar to the Poly in Pictures comics I posted links to.

What I DON'T see is a lot of individuals with a "harem" of partners of the opposite sex, and, as has already been pointed out, those who do attempt to gather a group of partners who are not allowed to have their own extracurricular relationships are generally looked down on by the rest of the community. It is very far from the norm.

[BlinkingDuck]

Originally Posted by Dunkelheit

And would be offset by the women with 2 or 3 or more male partners, as has been pointed out several times. Polygamous relationships are not limited to the "one man, several women" scenario.

You all keep saying that.

I view the above like I do deflation in currency. I hear about it. People swear it exists but, for some reason, I don't believe it.

Sure they may be a few but I have a feeling the vast majority would be one man/multiple women.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

You all keep saying that.

I view the above like I do deflation in currency. I hear about it. People swear it exists but, for some reason, I don't believe it.

Sure they may be a few but I have a feeling the vast majority would be one man/multiple women.

As has been pointed out, this isn't what happens in extant polyamorous communities. Hell, it only happens to a very limited extent among the kind of rich people who are inclined to flout society's conventions anyway, and when they get caught at it, well, look at what happened to ol' Tiger.

[even sven]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

You all keep saying that.

I view the above like I do deflation in currency. I hear about it. People swear it exists but, for some reason, I don't believe it.

Sure they may be a few but I have a feeling the vast majority would be one man/multiple women.

You don't know any relationship where the woman has cheated/taken a lover, or where both parties have cheated on each other? Same concept, but without the lying.

[Dunkelheit]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

Sure they may be a few but I have a feeling the vast majority would be one man/multiple women.

You all (monogamists) keep saying that. But those of us who are actually in the poly population see that it's not the case.

Your statements that "one man/multiple women" will be the norm is speculation about what might happen, or what happened historically within very strict patriarchal religious scenarios. Our refutation is based on what's actually happening right here in the real, modern world where women have independence and autonomy that was not historically available. Believe what you want, feel what you want, it doesn't make it true.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Dunkelheit

You all (monogamists) keep saying that. But those of us who are actually in the poly population see that it's not the case.

Your statements that "one man/multiple women" will be the norm is speculation about what might happen, or what happened historically within very strict patriarchal religious scenarios. Our refutation is based on what's actually happening right here in the real, modern world where women have independence and autonomy that was not historically available. Believe what you want, feel what you want, it doesn't make it true.

It's also a very hetero way of looking at it. Many of the poly relationships I know of involve people who are bi.. In one case it was a bi woman, her straight husband, and the bi woman's girlfriend who was a "third spouse" but wasn't attracted to the guy (she was bi herself and took other boyfriends and girlfriends, but there was never any sexual relationship between her and husband, just between her and wife.)

Here you have a guy who from the outside is living the poly dream of two hot chicks... The reality of the relationship was not that.

[grude]

I can't believe there is a debate about this, of course its not wrong morally or legally.

[Dunkelheit]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

It's also a very hetero way of looking at it. Many of the poly relationships I know of involve people who are bi.

This is true, though my husband and I are both hetero, so I tend not to think of it in those terms. ;-) We're unlikely to both be involved with the same person in any case. But yes, I have seen a lot of bi people of both sexes in the poly community.

[ouryL]

If a man marries two women are the two women also married two each other?

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by ouryL

If a man marries two women are the two women also married two each other?

How do you mean? Legally? Well, since a man may not marry two women, then the question is moot. In the poly community as it is today, there's no single answer. I guess it would depend largely on the nature of the relationship between the women.

I'm straight, and so is my wife. If I had a relationship with a woman other than her, which I currently do not, there would be no romantic relationship between them.

[Jamicat]

2 situations I can think of get a pass...

A] If I was in the old West, with a group of settlers. Settled a location with several families, and then something happened to the other adult males and I was left alone. Someone has to make more kids with all the widows, to keep the crops and livestock tended, so everyone can survive.

B] If my wife could not bear children, it might necessitate a compromise to find one that can, while still having the original wife, all about having kids to help tend farm.

In both of the situations it means more kids to tend farm, but it doesn't have to be a marriage to more than one person either.


If 3 CONSENTING ADULTS want to enter a contract of marriage that's also ok with me, as long as no extra benefits/tax breaks apply.

Any more than that, your pushing my bullshit buttons. I'm looking at you Utah.

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by Jamicat

2 situations I can think of get a pass...

A] If I was in the old West, with a group of settlers. Settled a location with several families, and then something happened to the other adult males and I was left alone. Someone has to make more kids with all the widows, to keep the crops and livestock tended, so everyone can survive.

B] If my wife could not bear children, it might necessitate a compromise to find one that can, while still having the original wife, all about having kids to help tend farm.

In both of the situations it means more kids to tend farm, but it doesn't have to be a marriage to more than one person either.


If 3 CONSENTING ADULTS want to enter a contract of marriage that's also ok with me, as long as no extra benefits/tax breaks apply.

Any more than that, your pushing my bullshit buttons. I'm looking at you Utah.

Well, in the world as it is right now, I think two consenting adults is pretty much the limit for legal marriage. I'm not sure why you'd say three is your limit (as opposed to four, or five, or...), but in any case, most poly relationships don't really work that way. If my wife had another relationship, I'd not consider myself "married" to him. He'd be her partner, not mine.

The Utah thing has been addressed upthread. I don't know how many poly people have to show up to say "No, poly relationships are not about men acquiring harems" before people who know nothing about it will actually accept that we know what we're talking about, but hell, I guess I'll keep trying.

[Strassia]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

Well, in the world as it is right now, I think two consenting adults is pretty much the limit for legal marriage. I'm not sure why you'd say three is your limit (as opposed to four, or five, or...), but in any case, most poly relationships don't really work that way. If my wife had another relationship, I'd not consider myself "married" to him. He'd be her partner, not mine.

That is of course how it works when she can't legally marry him. I think some people in this thread are confusing open marriages with poly marriages. If your wife was legally allowed to marry someone else, it may not matter if you consider yourself married or not. If, for example, your wife's husband racks up 500K, she would be just as on the hook for that as if you did it. So how would that work in relationship to you? That kind of issue needs to be worked out to legalize poly marriages. Which has no real bearing on their morality.

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

The Utah thing has been addressed upthread. I don't know how many poly people have to show up to say "No, poly relationships are not about men acquiring harems" before people who know nothing about it will actually accept that we know what we're talking about, but hell, I guess I'll keep trying.

Serious question: Does anyone have any statistics about the demographics of the current poly populations in any western democracy? All we have in this thread so far is anecdotes and historical examples.

[Dunkelheit]

Originally Posted by Strassia

That is of course how it works when she can't legally marry him. I think some people in this thread are confusing open marriages with poly marriages. If your wife was legally allowed to marry someone else, it may not matter if you consider yourself married or not. If, for example, your wife's husband racks up 500K, she would be just as on the hook for that as if you did it. So how would that work in relationship to you? That kind of issue needs to be worked out to legalize poly marriages. Which has no real bearing on their morality.

True. There would be legal logistics involving financial liability, custody of children, etc. The most feasible way I can see to manage such things would be to have contracts drawn up specific to the relationships in question. There isn't likely to be a "one size fits all" arrangement that fits every poly gathering. But if my husband and my other partner(s) didn't consider themselves partnered to each other, that would be reflected in the contractural liability -- I might be on the hook for their financial shenanigans, but he wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Strassia

Serious question: Does anyone have any statistics about the demographics of the current poly populations in any western democracy? All we have in this thread so far is anecdotes and historical examples.

What would you accept as "nonanecdotal" if the testimony of actual poly people doesn't count? Probably the only way to get a feeling for the number of poly people would be to look at the online communities, but that wouldn't cover those who don't participate in such things. Currently, there's not an option on the census for more than one partnership per person in the household, so there's no easy way to get a head count. And considering the animosity and scorn so often directed at such relationships, there are probably quite a few in the closet.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Strassia

Serious question: Does anyone have any statistics about the demographics of the current poly populations in any western democracy? All we have in this thread so far is anecdotes and historical examples.

Serious answer: for whatever reason (but given the timing when it became a big deal, likely a result of the TV series "Sister Wives" and "Big Love"), a disproportionate number of people on the online poly community I'm most familiar with have developed a near-pathological fear of even the most innocuous survey studies of the community when conducted by anyone with any academic or government credentials at all. I don't think good non-anecdotal data is likely to be extant or forthcoming for a while.

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by Strassia

That is of course how it works when she can't legally marry him. I think some people in this thread are confusing open marriages with poly marriages. If your wife was legally allowed to marry someone else, it may not matter if you consider yourself married or not. If, for example, your wife's husband racks up 500K, she would be just as on the hook for that as if you did it. So how would that work in relationship to you? That kind of issue needs to be worked out to legalize poly marriages. Which has no real bearing on their morality.

There would certainly be problems, and right now I'm inclined to say legal recognition of poly relationships isn't really a can of worms I'd be inclined to open. As you say, this doesn't have much bearing on whether or not such relationships are right or wrong.

Serious question: Does anyone have any statistics about the demographics of the current poly populations in any western democracy? All we have in this thread so far is anecdotes and historical examples.

Dunkelheit and Zeriel covered this one. There likely isn't much data since there's no easy way to collect it anonymously and many poly folks can do without the suspicion, ridicule and hostility. The last thing we need is a "the poly men are stealing all our women!" campaign breaking out. Still, if (outside of LDS type circles) there are guys with harems all over the place, they're hiding remarkably well. And even if I were inclined to acquire one of my own, I would expect some difficulty in persuading 21st century women that I should be allowed to boff anyone I like while they stay at home and iron my shirts.

[Zeriel]

Strassia does bring up an excellent point regarding polyamorous households and any possible law that deals with them. I can't think of any way that the typical poly relationships that I see today would make any sense whatsoever legally in community property states--you'd have to have individual spousal property for them to not be a legal and/or financial nightmare in situations like the one he describes.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

Still, if (outside of LDS type circles) there are guys with harems all over the place, they're hiding remarkably well. .

Harems? Well, no. But there are the weird-not-quite-LDS dudes, the middle eastern shieks & what-not and of course Hugh Hefner.

My poly friends are all in trios. No harems. Of those I know, 2 women one male outnumber the 2 guys one female by 4-1. Well, make that 4-0 as the last 2guys and one woman poly relationship I knew just had one of the guys pass away. (and by those I mean I know exactly five households like that. Plus a few with several guys, several woman all living together in a sorta commune deal, which I guess is technically "poly" and of those two, in both cases there's one more guy).

However, even if we say it's 60/40 in the open poly community, those weird-not-quite-LDS dudes, the middle eastern shieks & what-not do put the numbers heavily down into the more multiple female groupings.

But certainly, I personally know no "harems". (Well, I met Hef once, but.....)

[Dunkelheit]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Harems? Well, no. But there are the weird-not-quite-LDS dudes, the middle eastern shieks & what-not and of course Hugh Hefner.

My poly friends are all in trios. No harems. Of those I know, 2 women one male outnumber the 2 guys one female by 4-1.

Most of the poly people I know personally, as well as most of the ones I've encountered online, are in pairings where both partners have one or more extracurricular partners, who may or may not have other partners themselves. So, a male-female couple where the male has one or more partners and the female has one or more partners, and their partners may have one or more partners, of varying genders depending on the sexuality of the people involved. I don't know that many exclusive trios with no metamours.

My own situation is more likely to have me with multiple partners than my husband (PaulParkhead FYI), just based on personal preference and levels of neediness. ;-) Not that he's not allowed to, it's just that I'm more likely at this point to find someone local and exert the effort of cultivating another relationship. So far, I've been the only one in our relationship to have extracurricular "friends with benefits" (well, "exes with benefits" is probably more accurate), but they're all oceans away at this point, so there are no metamours currently in our relationship. I could probably get a lot of casual sex if that's what I wanted, but it's not -- I'd prefer a committed relationship, so it might be a while before someone appropriate comes along. I do know a lot of poly people locally, though, so it's possible that I'll end up with someone who already has other partners themselves.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

Still, if (outside of LDS type circles) there are guys with harems all over the place, they're hiding remarkably well.

You've never heard of rock or sports stars with a mob of groupies?

[even sven]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

You've never heard of rock or sports stars with a mob of groupies?

Those groupies probably aren't in exclusive relationships with the rock star- they most like date or even have a steady relationship with someone who is more of a peer.

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

You've never heard of rock or sports stars with a mob of groupies?

Yeah, but how many of those groupies are exclusively attached to their chosen celebrity? My guess is most of those girls are one night stands, and then they go home to find a boyfriend, or go back to the boyfriend they already have, without mentioning the "I slept with a drunk celebrity" part of their trips.

What I'm saying is that groupies aren't anything close to a real harem, polygamy or polyamory. Might as well say the bachelor down the street has a harem, because he has a new date every week.

[Farmer Jane]

Nope. And people who think so are largely culture-centric. Anti-polygamy laws in the U.S. are rooted in racism, and it's ridiculous that men can shack up with several women or have mistresses but can't make legal commitments to more than one woman. I've gone rounds about this in other threads, but this quote from Reynolds sticks: polygamy is almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people.

[Learjeff]

Just my two cents:

Gay marriage will be accepted in the US; the people will finally come to realize that sex shouldn't determine who can marry who.

Given that premise, polygamy would be the next logical step. However, there is one significant difference. Our legal system has evolved with polygamy being illegal, so a change to allowing polygamy would have significant repercussions in the number of legal details to work out.

Also, laws against polygamy have a basis in protecting women. That probably isn't the biggest reason against it; religious and traditional reasons are probably the main ones. But we'd have to make sure that we don't lose any important protections against abuse. I believe that one is more easily worked out (by addressing the abuses themselves rather than a condition that might or might not support them).

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Dunkelheit

Most of the poly people I know personally, as well as most of the ones I've encountered online, are in pairings where both partners have one or more extracurricular partners, who may or may not have other partners themselves. So, a male-female couple where the male has one or more partners and the female has one or more partners, and their partners may have one or more partners, of varying genders depending on the sexuality of the people involved. I don't know that many exclusive trios with no metamours..

Ah, well you see I don't count that as "poly" I count that as more of a "open relationship". IMHO a marriage is where everyone lives in the same household.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

. Anti-polygamy laws in the U.S. are rooted in racism, .

Cite? In the USA it's almost entirely a reaction to the early LDS church.

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

What does your wife think of that setup?

I've always been curious how these relationships stay together. People tend to not like sharing with others.

In general, you're right, if we can believe even the most moderate sociobiologists (folks who believe that evolution shapes behavior ... not a very remarkable claim). Given human breeding dynamics, it makes evolutionary sense for both men and women to instinctively dislike sharing their mates (though for slightly different reasons).

But we aren't slaves to our instincts, and some instincts, while felt strongly in many, are not felt at all by others. There are people who have no fear of heights or falling, which is hard for me to imagine.

I'm not a jealous person. I actually don't think I've ever felt the emotion. As a kid, I had a hard time understanding the distinction between jealousy and envy, and my understandingnow is more intellectual than visceral.

I haven't ever shared a mate, but I believe I could -- that is, if all the myriad other details could be worked out without too much drama. I could easily be mistaken in that, though!

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

That sounds susiciously similar to Obama style "share the wealth" socialism. Accruing (or inheriting wealth) is the clearest indicator of virtue and genetic superiority we have, so we should let the wealthy have more wives.

You're effectively defining "genetic superiority" as "able to amass wealth", and then proposing a change that would make that definition more valid.

"Survival of the fittest" is indeed a tautology, as creationists like to say. It's not a criticism of evolution, and it doesn't make it useless, any more than "1 + 1 = 2" (which is equally tautological). But it is a good thing to keep in mind: those that survive are by definition the "fittest", and "fitness" changes dramatically depending on the circumstances.

Currently, the "fittest" happen to be the poorest, who are multiplying most rapidly. That may not be what you want, but it's how it is. While I don't think that's the best scenario, I certainly don't agree the richest deserve any special advantages in breeding rights, and don't necessarily even possess any genetic superiority.

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Ah, well you see I don't count that as "poly" I count that as more of a "open relationship". IMHO a marriage is where everyone lives in the same household.

I suppose the thread title does refer to polygamy, and I agree that what Dunkelheit described is not that. The discussion seems to have broadened somewhat, though. Usually when someone talks about "poly" they mean polyamory.

[Dunkelheit]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Ah, well you see I don't count that as "poly" I count that as more of a "open relationship". IMHO a marriage is where everyone lives in the same household.

Well, since actual polygamist marriage isn't legally possible, it probably doesn't happen as often as it might do if it were legalized. I do know of several people who live with at least some of their partners -- the author of the "Poly in Pictures" comics I linked to has just moved in with a portion of her extended poly family. But there are many flavours of poly on the spectrum, from open relationships to committed polyglots. I would prefer a committed polyglot myself, if I ever found the right people to form one with. My ideal scenario would be to have another couple (or two?) that my husband and I could commit to and live together with. I don't know if that'll ever happen, but it's a sweet thought to hold on to.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Ah, well you see I don't count that as "poly" I count that as more of a "open relationship". IMHO a marriage is where everyone lives in the same household.

That would put most FDLS relationships in the category of "open marriages" instead of "polyamorous" as it isn't uncommon for each wife to have her own house.

I'd say the difference between a poly marriage and an open marriage is the level of commitment to the other partners - someone in an open relationship might "date" other people, but doesn't form any serious intimate emotional relationship. Poly marriage have interrelationships that last for years. Open marriages have extracurricular relationships that the other person knows about and consents to, possibly for a few months at a time.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

That would put most FDLS relationships in the category of "open marriages" instead of "polyamorous" as it isn't uncommon for each wife to have her own house.

But in the same compound, so it's really very similar.

[Dunkelheit]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

I'd say the difference between a poly marriage and an open marriage is the level of commitment to the other partners - someone in an open relationship might "date" other people, but doesn't form any serious intimate emotional relationship. Poly marriage have interrelationships that last for years. Open marriages have extracurricular relationships that the other person knows about and consents to, possibly for a few months at a time.

Good distinctions. That's why I describe myself as in a poly marriage rather than an "open" one, because what I'm about is not "dating" other people on a casual basis, but having intimate, committed emotional relationships with more than one person at a time.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

People assume so. But is it really?

Is it, for example, anti-christian? The Bible seems to endorse it in fact. Early Christian Charlemagne had more than one wife. And it apparently was at least a non-issue then.

Is it wrong "morally"? I covered the Christian part. And most other moralities, at least that I am aware of, focus on the harmful aspects of things*. So how does polygamy harm anyone?

Thank you in advance to all who reply

_________________________________________________________g.

Whatever the moral issues, it is disruptive to social harmony because in theory you end up with a higher number of young men without a partner.

[FounderChurch]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

People assume so. But is it really?

Is it, for example, anti-christian? The Bible seems to endorse it in fact. Early Christian Charlemagne had more than one wife. And it apparently was at least a non-issue then.

Is it wrong "morally"? I covered the Christian part. And most other moralities, at least that I am aware of, focus on the harmful aspects of things*. So how does polygamy harm anyone?



________________________________________________________________*I'm sorry, I probably won't be able to offer a cite for this. But it's true. Most moralities (other than Christian) focus on the harm things do. Prove me wrong.

See my thread on Polygamy.

[PaulParkhead]

Originally Posted by Chen019

Whatever the moral issues, it is disruptive to social harmony because in theory you end up with a higher number of young men without a partner.

Have you, like, read the thread?

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Tristan

The model is there, and lawyers are paid exactly to figure out the social issues that a 3 way (or more) divorce would create. Let them figure it out.

Not a problem. Some jurisdictions already have their laws set up for this (e.g. Ontario, so as to deal with foreign polygamous marriages), and let's face it, things often get quite complicated when relationships break down, once lovers, new spouses and step-children enter the picture.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Chen019

Whatever the moral issues, it is disruptive to social harmony because in theory you end up with a higher number of young men without a partner.

Next time, read the thread before you weigh in, lest you look silly.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

Have you, like, read the thread?

I'll point out that in general, he is correct. Those saying otherwise have no cites and/or are talking more about a open relationship, rather than several people living together as if married.

[E-Sabbath]

Here's a point. I understand there are sucessful poly relationships. I know a few couples that way. But all of them come from environments where polygamy is not the norm, and where they met as adults.
The only examples we have for environments where polygamy is the norm, are the Mormon offshoots. Now, I can talk about reasons why the 'lost boys' situation is an expected norm given an environment like that. Some examples being that, even in normal situations, high school girls like to date older boys who are more mature, and older boys are complete dickwads who aren't quite mature enough. Or how, at heart, marriage is about taking care of another person, and there is no-one who is a poorer caregiver than someone who is under their majority. Even someone who has a job at a gas station and dropped out of school has more spending cash than a high school kid.

What polygamy does is that it refuses to remove the married people, who are older and have more money, from the dating pool. This will naturally skew things one way or another. Go on, think about how it'll change things. My best guess is that it'll have younger women going for older men. As for women with multiple husbands... it's possible, but, given everything we know about social behavior, it's not going to be enough to balance out the men with multiple wives.

I think it's reasonable to say that it would be bad for society if polyamory were a common thing. There are people, mature people, who can handle it. But you have to consider that most of the people in the world really aren't all that mature. And you have to look at people at their stupidest and most emotional points, and see how that factors in to things.

Am I wrong here?

ETA: Most of the poly relationships I know of, are relationships where at least one person is bi and thus there's a more than two-way relationship. If Bob and Charles both love Mary, but Bob and Charles don't love each other so much, it can cause stresses. If Bob and Charles love each other, and Mary loves Bob and Charles, it's much more likely that it'll last. But what percentage of the population is bi? Is it more than a third? Technically, for this sort of things to work, it'd need to be two thirds, wouldn't it?

[E-Sabbath]

A sociological note of interest I found wikitrawling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_sex_ratio

The operational sex ratio is affected by the length of time each sex spends in caring for young or in recovering from mating.[4] For example, if females cease mating activity to care for young, but males do not, then more males would be ready to mate than females.

A good point, and yet another indication of how the population could be biased. Let's say Angie and Will get married, and Angie gets pregnant. Will, not being removed from the dating pool, may be much more likely at this point to try to find a second wife, than Angie would a second husband.

[Dunkelheit]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I'll point out that in general, he is correct. Those saying otherwise have no cites and/or are talking more about a open relationship, rather than several people living together as if married.

It is not correct in the sense that those relationships are not depriving other males of female partners, because there are females with more than one male partner, regardless of whether they live together in the same household or not.

[Dunkelheit]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

I think it's reasonable to say that it would be bad for society if polyamory were a common thing. There are people, mature people, who can handle it. But you have to consider that most of the people in the world really aren't all that mature. And you have to look at people at their stupidest and most emotional points, and see how that factors in to things.

I think it's reasonable to say that even if polygamy were legal, the majority of people would still choose monogamy. Being legal would not make it mandatory, and there are a lot of people out there who are not willing to share.

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

As for women with multiple husbands... it's possible, but, given everything we know about social behavior, it's not going to be enough to balance out the men with multiple wives.

As has been pointed out repeatedly: among those who are inclined to have more than one partner at a time, there are just as many women with multiple partners as there are men with multiple partners. And whether they are living together in a single household within the current cultural and legal framework is irrelevant, before that one gets trotted out again (not by you, necessarily, I'm just saying). Those who are poly-minded come from both genders.

[E-Sabbath]

Originally Posted by Dunkelheit

I think it's reasonable to say that even if polygamy were legal, the majority of people would still choose monogamy. Being legal would not make it mandatory, and there are a lot of people out there who are not willing to share.

But polygamy means, among other things, going steady with multiple girls is possible in high school. So Jack Quarterback is now dating two cheerleaders and one brainy chick to do his homework. And don't tell me Jack wouldn't. Think about what that does to the immature high school dating scene. You have to look at this at the points of friction.

And why do you think the majority of people would still choose monogamy? Polygamy is, when you get down to it, a boast. I am successful! I can support multiple partners! You will RESPECT me! People are, when you get down to it, pack animals. Look at how wolfpack mating relationships happen. One alpha, a few betas, and a number of people who don't get nookie till they either take over a beta's spot, or get run out of the pack. Which is, concidentally, what we see an echo of in the Lost Boys situation. You can learn a lot about human behavior by looking at canids. We spent our entire civilized history with them, after all. If you don't like the wolf example, you can check out apes... which seem to have similar events happening.

As has been pointed out repeatedly: among those who are inclined to have more than one partner at a time, there are just as many women with multiple partners as there are men with multiple partners.

Cite, please. Certainly some women have multiple partners at the same time. How many of them have multiple committed partners? A fling is one thing, but it's not a relationship. Over the span of the last ten thousand years, how often has this been a stable situation? We've got all of human history to use as a sample size here, polygamy's been tried before. What are the historic results? How is it different now?

I can certainly think of ancedotal situations where a guy has multiple girlfriends and they aren't in favor of the situation, but decide it's better to have some of the guy than none of him. But the plural of ancedote is not data.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

Cite, please. Certainly some women have multiple partners at the same time. How many of them have multiple committed partners? A fling is one thing, but it's not a relationship. Over the span of the last ten thousand years, how often has this been a stable situation? We've got all of human history to use as a sample size here, polygamy's been tried before. What are the historic results? How is it different now?

I can certainly think of ancedotal situations where a guy has multiple girlfriends and they aren't in favor of the situation, but decide it's better to have some of the guy than none of him. But the plural of ancedote is not data.

And, as was pointed out, its very hard to get data on this sort of thing. Polygamy (as opposed to open marriage) isn't well defined in our society. It isn't legal. And where it has been studied, its been studied from the outside generally looking at religious communities. I'd guess there aren't two groups of people more different than the members of the FDLS and the members of Fen Poly households (which is where I know poly people, and who tend to get their models apparently from reading lots of Heinlein). Historic results aren't very indicative of what could happen today, because there has been a shift from sex for procreation and the need for a mate for protection of a child. Moreover, as I pointed out above, this part of the discussion sort of assumes heterosexuality - which is often not the case in a poly household. A guy can have four wives, but if one of them is bi and three of them are lesbians, he isn't exactly removing women from the pool. (In my experience, it seems to be more common that a bi guy will have a gay husband and a straight wife - a family of three).

It would be very interesting to spend some time academically looking at Fen Poly households, or Poly households within the Pagan community (from what I can tell there is a lot of crossover between the groups).

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

But polygamy means, among other things, going steady with multiple girls is possible in high school. So Jack Quarterback is now dating two cheerleaders and one brainy chick to do his homework.

That's why I support a one month limit on going steady.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Wrong? No. But what a huge pain in the ass! What man in their right mind would want to surround himself with that many wives?

Alternatively, think of all the extra tax credits!

[E-Sabbath]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

I'd guess there aren't two groups of people more different than the members of the FDLS and the members of Fen Poly households (which is where I know poly people, and who tend to get their models apparently from reading lots of Heinlein). Historic results aren't very indicative of what could happen today, because there has been a shift from sex for procreation and the need for a mate for protection of a child. Moreover, as I pointed out above, this part of the discussion sort of assumes heterosexuality - which is often not the case in a poly household. A guy can have four wives, but if one of them is bi and three of them are lesbians, he isn't exactly removing women from the pool. (In my experience, it seems to be more common that a bi guy will have a gay husband and a straight wife - a family of three).

It would be very interesting to spend some time academically looking at Fen Poly households, or Poly households within the Pagan community (from what I can tell there is a lot of crossover between the groups).

This is precisely what I've been saying. The FLDS arrangement _seems_ to match what we would historically see in a poly society, while the fen arrangement is a more modern, personal, a-legal arrangement that can be emotionally healthy.

I see relatively little difference between the FLDS arrangement, and say, a middle eastern sultan or chinese emperor's court, to take two well known, but stereotypical arrangements.

You have the alpha on the throne, the beta courtiers... and the lost boys, or eunuches, who do various flavors of work. In china, they were the bureaucratic elite, but they weren't getting any nookie.

China's model is actually fairly interesting to examine, being somewhat isolated from our western mode for many years. It winds up more or less as expected, except with a high mortality rate taking care of the lost boys syndrome, with patriarchs and a very low view of the value of women. The Curious Case of Judge Dee goes into relationships in some detail, if incidentally, in much the same way Sherlock Holmes discusses relationship patterns in Victorian England.

Looking at our society, and the examples provided by our best and brightest, I don't think we're ready for fen-poly as a wide-spread thing.

[Zeriel]

The biggest difference that E-Sabbath's examples all seem to miss are the fact, mentioned several times in this thread, that modern society has women with orders of magnitude more agency than any previous poly-friendly civilization. Cindy Cheerleader has every incentive to date both a cute guy and a guy who's willing to trade homework for sex.

Historical comparisons with societies in which women were chattel or denied suffrage are invalid on their face. Even the comparison with the FLDS is basically meaningless, since those women are also raised and conditioned for obedience, compared to mainstream modern civilization.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

Looking at our society, and the examples provided by our best and brightest, I don't think we're ready for fen-poly as a wide-spread thing.

I don't think most human beings are wired for "fen poly," and therefore, it will never be a widespread thing. Not without incredible amounts of cultural change. But that doesn't mean that for those that ARE wired for it, its wrong. It may not be the societal norm, but it can be functional.

I suspect that most men are wired for traditional polyamory and women in such societies have had little power to object.