# Is polygamy inherently bad for women and children? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-polygamy-inherently-bad-for-women-and-children/344316 "2006-02-13T19:08:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-polygamy-inherently-bad-for-women-and-children/344316/101 "2006-02-13T23:30:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Someone may claim that because one event follows another, the second is caused by the first. That’s the fallacy of _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_. This isn’t a _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_ fallacy. He’s arguing that polygamy is “inherently bad” and attempting to support this by demonstrating that victims of “traumatic childhoods” are drawn to it. Maligning something because of the sorts of people who are associated with it is an _ad hominem_. (This doesn’t even get into the fact that he keep stating, without proof that polyamory is chaotic or unintimate and that many polys suffer childhood trauma). ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-polygamy-inherently-bad-for-women-and-children/344316/102 "2006-02-13T23:33:47Z")
Well, the above-mentioned child skipped her nap and has been a basket case all afternoon, requiring my attention. Where is my theoretical supernumerary spouse when I need him/her? (And apologies for my earlier seeming sexism, which grew out of my focus on the original television subject and my own domestic situation.) Let me work somewhat backwards here. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The more people who are involved in a relationship the less intimacy it has and the more inherently unstable. What a stupid question. Does this mean that the more children I have, the less intimate and more unstable my relationship with each is? I mean, I can see problems with time management (not to mention money) with, say, a dozen children. But would an only child automatically have a better relationship with her parents than children with several siblings? I see we’ve had two women offer their healthy upbringing and polyamory as evidence against \*\*DtC’s \*\* argument, but he seems to be ignoring them. Sorry about simply saying “Mormon.” I guess the most accurate way to put it is LDS heretics or something. I hope most people got my meaning through context. As for legal issues, I’m inclined to say polygamy shouldn’t be illegal, but I can’t see how our system could handle controlling polygamous marriages the way it does monogamous ones. (Actually, I have doubts about the government getting involved in the question at all, regardless of the number of spouses.) But presumably if it’s not illegal, spouses could form a contract that would govern their relationships and what would happen when the relationship ended. > [@Kimstu](#): > > What you seem to be talking about is co-housing or a kibbutz, not polygamy. Setting up your household so that there are more than two adults to help run it is one thing. That is true, come to think of it. My best friend and I talk idly about forming a commune. And, perhaps most importantly, contrary to his conclusion, I do not agree with **DtC**. \*\*Bricker \*\* answered pretty well on my behalf. For instance, I have an intense visceral reaction to seeing surgery performed. It is bad enough that I would never in a million years consider becoming a doctor myself. In no way does that imply that I think doctors are screwed up - they just have a different emotional reaction from mine. ---
**Author:** ![Basandre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Basandre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Basandre)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-polygamy-inherently-bad-for-women-and-children/344316/103 "2006-02-13T23:36:52Z")
> [@Lilairen](#): > > I had a fairly typical smart-kid introvert childhood, actually. I wouldn’t call it idyllic – certainly not up to **Basandre** ’s standards, I only got riding _lessons_ Hey now, it was **aruvqan** who got a pony! I didn’t get riding lessons, I got piano lessons… ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-polygamy-inherently-bad-for-women-and-children/344316/104 "2006-02-13T23:37:41Z")
Well, I am having trouble developing intimacy with this thread, (which I do find chaotic). Unfortunately, I see no way that the OP can be resurrected (or even addressed) in the current situation. **AerynSun** (or anyone else) is free to open a new thread on the topic, but I would suggest that the discussion be couched in terms that will limit the sort of unsupported claims that have been hurled around this thread. (_E.g._, “Has anyone ever _studied_, much less documented, the affects on polygyny (or polyandry) on the participants or their offspring?”) Meanwhile, everyone who needs to take a swipe at anyone else, feel free to open as new thread in [The BBQ Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=5) where you can bash to your hearts’ content without dragging **AerynSun** ’s name or post into the thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-polygamy-inherently-bad-for-women-and-children/344316.md?page=5)