Now there’s a coincidence; I just happen to have at hand J. Puthenkalam’s Marriage and the Family in Kerala, and it seems that among the Nayars of the Kerala region, polyandry was quite common up through the mid-twentieth century, and persisted in scattered cases up to at least the late 1970’s.
But Nayar castes tended to be matrilineal (descent and inheritance reckoned through the mother, not the father), and their marriages tended to be matrilocal (the man joined the woman’s family compound, not vice versa) and often on the so-called “visiting husband” basis, where the couple don’t share a permanent residence of their own, but the husband(s) visited the wife at her home.
The same society also seems to have practiced occasional polygyny (although at a different socioeconomic level, since only rich men could afford to contribute to the support of more than one wife and set of children). AFAIK, this may be the only known society where polyandry and polygyny were both accepted customs?
Fraternal polyandry, where multiple brothers share the same wife in the same household, is a rather different kettle of fish and usually involves much less autonomy for the wife.
I’m going to get killed for saying this, but I’m guessing you must have gone through some serious childhood trauma (abandonment, maybe? alcoholic parent? Something worse?) to want to live with this much chaos and fear of intimacy. It doesn’t make you evil or immoral but people seek chaos because they were brought up with chaos.
Or are you going to tell me you had a perfect childhood with no trauma, no chaos, no abandoment, no abuse?
There are a lot of families these days that get by with only a fraction of a husband/father’s financial or moral support due to overwork, travel, divorce, etc. These situations are not traumatic when parents agree that in spite of living separately they will put the child’s welfare above their differences.
The one and only reason I’d argue against legalizing polygamy is the legal nightmare it could potentially create for divorce law and probate law. It just so happens that 2-party marriage is well suited to be adjudicated by our adversarial justice system and we have plenty of experience and precedent doing this. I can see true plurality throwing this into a huge snarl and geometrically increasing the incomes of divorce lawyers.
If you think about it, really a remarried man paying child support to one or more ex-wives is for all practical purposes a polygamist. The only difference is that the government is specifying the exact nature of the support contract, and sex isn’t part of it. If you had a mechanism where a man could marry one woman as a “primary spouse” under the laws we now know, and add any number of others as “secondary” with the same legal rights ex-wives enjoy today, maybe that could be a workable solution.
Please show me your psychiatrist’s licence and demonstrate that you have read the relevant literature on this subject before attempting to perform a remote diagnosis. Also, confirm the acquisition of consent and conform to standards of professional ethics.
I’m going to get killed for saying this, but I’m guessing that you were raised in a small, dark closet to have such little room in your mind for ideas that don’t match what you think is acceptable.
Or, we could just stop guessing and treat one another like intelligent adults who know the best way to live our own lives?
The first couple of posts here sum up my conflicted, shifting thoughts about polygamy pretty well. In most cases where polygamy occurs in an institutionalized way, I think the women get degraded and treated like property. (To pick a number at random, I simply cannot buy the notion that a man can marry nine women, have children with them, and treat them all well.) Does that mean that, if it could be practiced in a way where everybody involved was equal, it should still be illegal? I have to say no, even though I’m not a fan of the idea. I’ve got many questions about how legalized polygamy would be handled in the courts, and I know a lot of other people around here have similar questions, but that’s a separate issue.
Human behaviour is very predictable. I would bet just about anything that Lilairen has some kind of childhood trauma in her background. It’s not a moral judgement and I don’t see what the big deal is. I know something about abuse backgrounds from having lived through one myself.
I find it interested, DtC, that you assume “chaos and fear of intimacy” from Lilairen’s description of her relationships. Especially in light of her statement that her relationship with her husband is stable and secure, and that she is secure in her relationship with her current partner. In fact, she says that she broke up with a boyfriend because she wasn’t secure in that relationship.
Where is the chaos? And how did you get to fear of intimacy?
Gar… I left off an important point I was going to include in this… another benefit of a childbearing polygamous marriage would be larger families… assuming no financial distress, this has got to be better than the 2+2 nuclear family we have come to accept as “normal” which in fact is probably a historical aberration. If you think about it, with most children having only two parents as emotionally intimate adults and a brother or sister as an emotionally intimate peer, is it little wonder that so many people feel a sense of isolation and anomie these days?
One, the sexism. Both men and women can be tapped for child support based on their circumstances; both men and women may want multiple partners. I’m going to presume this is a mild misspeaking; it’s not a structural problem.
Second, the second-class marriage aspect. Some people prefer that sort of heirarchy with only one ‘real spouse’ in their networks, but it doesn’t really work for all people. I would personally accept that sort of setup in theory as the same sort of unpalatable stopgap as “civil union”, but it would not have met my needs at the times I have had two primary partners, nor would I consider it adequate for the legal protections of my family.
It is a moral judgement, and it is a big deal, because you are discounting another poster’s explicit statement about her own choices and preferences. You’re saying, in effect, “My opinion about your relationships, even as an anonymous stranger on the internet who has no personal acquaintance with you or independent knowledge of your life, is more valid than yours.” And that’s insulting.
The chaos is that they’re both sleeping with 50 other people. They may be “stable” in that they haven’t broken up, but it doesn’t sound very intimate. Constantly banging other people is one the strategies by which people avoid feelings of intimacy.
He said that if you’re in a poly marriage, and female, you’ve almost certainly got some childhood trauma. He didn’t say that if you’ve had some childhood trauma, then you’ll get into a poly marriage. Yours is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Nope, sorry. I did nothing of the kind. I merely guessed that she had some history of abuse (which she hasn’t denied). There’s no moral judgement inherent in that.
