OK, let's forget about the "Sister Wives." IS polygamy an excellent way to raise a family?

[Stoid]

@Sarahfeena

but the discussion centers around the question of whether the happiness of the adults is adequate to make a satisfactory household for the children.

I thought it was whether polygamy was adequte to make a satisfactory household for children, narrowing the discussion to polygamous marriages that are happy, the definition of which I took to be obvious, and you made a point of explicitly defining.

I’m confused by this, because you DID say that monogamy is unnatural. I don’t think it’s a big leap to make to think that what you mean is that since polygamy is more natural, then it naturally is a superior way to raise children.

Here’s what I said:

I think that if your goal is to raise children, especially if you want lots, polygamy is a terrific way to do it - I think it’s better for kids than monogamy, assuming the adults can be happy with it.

It seems very clear that it’s a wonderful boon to the women involved, enormous support, plenty of support and supervision for the kids… I just don’t see a downside, if you can manage to handle the expense, which is an issue for lots of families and may be less of one when you have four wives and 2-3 of them work - built in childcare!

Monogamy is deeply unnatural, by the way. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any primate species that practices it, except ours, and we very rarely actually pull it off. So formalizing our natural tendency to have multiple partners in a way that supports a loving family for children to grow up in is a very good thing… way better than a “monogamous” couple chained together for the sake of the kids but miserable, fighting and cheating.

Plural marriage may not be perfection, but I don’t see that it’s inherently a lesser system if practiced freely by informed adults.

I have absolutely no value judgment of any kind on the idea of “natural” vs. “unnatural”. I think it is profoundly unnatural for people to wear clothes, cover their mouths when they cough, use a hanky instead of their bare hands, risk their own life to save the life of someone else, cook, and about a thousand other things that range from “pleasant” to “fabulous”.

Do you think it’s truly accurate to boil all that down to:

“Polygamy = good + monogamy = unnatural = Premise of OP: Polygamy solves the problem of monogamy”

Because if you really believe that, I strongly encourage you to radically re-think the way you “interpret” other people’s words.

You went digging mostly for information about what kind of background each of the women was from, from what I saw.

No. I went digging for everything and that’s what I found. Because there was so little independent information about the people themselves, other people in the thread starting slinging around accusations that everything we knew about the people was bullshit:

Yes, they have a “choice”- stay with the prig- or divorce. And then lose their kids (maybe) or maybe be tracked down and be “gutted” due to "blood atonement “. There’s a fucking knife being held to their throats, how can you accept everything they say at face value?”

So I looked for everything on the family and the church. And found absolutely zero support for this hysterical accusation, which was held up as the proof that the wives were all being dishonest.

…so I was skimming. What I’m talking about is putting on a critical thinking cap, and asking yourself if the reactions some of the women had in the show to certain situations were telling you anything that maybe contradicted the words they were saying. All the digging in the world won’t tell you that, because none of these people have gone to the media to tell them anything they don’t want people to hear.

Well, there’s the difference between us, and why I think your definition of “critical thinking skills” is lacking. What you describe isn’t critical thinking skills at all, more like intuition. Now, intuition, gut feelings, these are very good cues that further investigation might be in order, not conclusive proof that no investigation is necessary.

We know that we view the Browns behavior differently. I don’t leap to a conclusion that because we saw them express and specifically articulate their unhappiness that they must be even more unhappy in ways that we don’t know about. Nor do I think it is logical to accept their expressions of negative feelings as accurate and honest while rejecting their expressions of positive feelings as deceptive.

Nor do I believe that my gut is right about them hiding the truth because I won’t be able to prove that I’m rights since they hide the truth! I know I’m right because I can’t prove I’m right and that’s proof that I’m right. :dubious:

Instead, I looked for everything I could find about them and about their church. I watched all seven episodes, an hour of Oprah, the Today show interview, the Nightline interview, and I read the interview from before the show was planned.

After absorbing all that, and finding nothing significant leading to the idea that this people were hiding dark truths, I did put on my critical thinking cap and this is the rough approximation of how I critically examined the information available:

1. Reality shows, ever since the debacle of “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire”, are very concerned with background checks, and they don’t like surprises. If there was anything truly dreadful like blood atonement eviscerations, they would have passed on the show, at least with this family or any family associated with churches that carry out blood atonement eviscerations.

2. Your average person is not a great actor. None of the members of this family seems stilted, uncomfortable, unreal, furtive, or anything similar. Not Kody (who, on the other hand, does come across like a 10 year old mugging for attention), not any of his wives, and not the children. There’s no knowing looks, no choked off sentences. No one seems cowed or timid or fearful. They appear very normal, gregarious, friendly and open, and very much a part of the larger society. If they are faking it, the are the Barrymores of Lehi, Nevada.

3. There are a lot of people who are interested in finding some kind of dirt on these people, with gossip rags at the top of the list. If anyone was going to find anything, TMZ or the Enquirer would have it by now. Yet the best they could do were some unidentified “sources” speculating about blood atonement evisceration because that’s what they heard about some other guy that supposedly belonged to the same church, which is a pretty long way to go to point the finger at Kody & Co. Not very compelling.

4. And as for what you view as good reason to distrust their sincerity: the reactions and the words were not contradictory. Their words and reactions are in perfect sync, because when they are reacting, they verbally express what they are reacting to and say exactly what they are crying/angry/confused/happy/irritated/conflicted about. Nor do their expressions of unhappiness, anger and other negative feelings undermine their claims to perfect happiness…because they never claimed perfect happiness. Their clear expressions of their struggles bolster their claim to genuineness, it doesn’t weaken it.

In sum, I gathered all the data, ran it through my critical thinking processor, and what came out the other end was: yeah, pretty much what they appear to be.

And finally, if I had started from the same place that you did, believing that things were being hidden, I wouldn’t have ended up there after the investigation and processing I did. Even if I still had a gut feeling, I’d end up saying: “I had a gut feeing that these people were full of shit. But at this point the facts and logic tell me my gut got this wrong.”

[Hello_Again]

@Stoid

You’re missing my point with this argument. We could both point to boatloads of things that people commonly do that aren’t the least bit natural. The fact that people do it, and do it a lot, doesn’t make it natural. If you doubt it, explain to me how natural it is to drive a car.
.

It is absolutely natural for a human being to drive a car; as long as we have been human, we have used tools to alter our environment. For a long time that was the definition of human. A car is the logical extension of a cognitive and physical process that began with an aescheulean handaxe and shows no signs of diminishing 1.8 million years later. I’m not sure if anything is more natural to the human animal than technology.

Every human construct is natural. Not just natural - definitional. A car – or a dog travois – or an outrigger canoe – or an aircraft carrier – or a covered wagon – or a hang-glider – is not something outside of being human – its a huge part of what makes us human.

Similarly, every human relationship ever conceived is equally natural. When the human mind turns to problem solving, you never know what might happen.

[Peeta_Mellark]

The comments about monogamy being unnatural put me in mind of this blog post.

This part in particular:

[F]or some reason, the only time primate sexuality gets any attention is when we turn it into a debate about how humans should be having sex.

We never say, “Hey, those muriquis are too promiscuous. Don’t they know that all of their close evolutionary cousins are polygynous? If they just did what came naturally to them, they’d have a lot less psychological stress.” Or, “Those gibbons are so sexually repressed. If they just gave in to their natural predilection for promiscuity, I bet those nasty gibbons would have fewer territorial disputes and gibbon society would be much more peaceful.”

No, we recognize that in those primates, their behavior has been shaped by different ecological and social pressures. Sometimes, we accept that those pressures occurred very recently, and are probably very specific to a certain environment which that species occupies. We recognize that they have a unique evolutionary history. But as soon as we introduce humans into the equation, we change our descriptions of behavior into prescriptions, and our supported hypotheses into capital T Truths about human nature. We try to figure out THE. NATURAL. WAY., so that we can start doing it ourselves, and shaming those around of us who haven’t caught on yet.

Some humans are happy with polygamy and that is great, but it hardly means that millions of monogamous people for thousands of years are suddenly unnatural. We are primates. We adapt to a variety of situations and use a variety of strategies for survival and mating. There is nothing unnatural about any of it. Natural doesn’t mean “good”. In fact, natural behaviors can be absolutely repulsive.

[TokyoBayer]

@Stoid

@sarafeena

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that if you think polygamy is an excellent way to raise children, it’s because it’s solving some problem that’s inherent in monogamy. Take childcare, for instance. Obviously, if both spouses work outside the home, there’s a problem that needs to be solved…who’s going to care for the children? (And if you think that’s not problematic, you obviously haven’t had to do it. ) Your implication (and, yes, I’m interpreting what you are saying! That is a natural part of human discourse.) is that the reason polygamy is natural is that it “solves” these kinds of issues that are inherent in monogamy.

Nor do I. But that’s not the same thing as what Tokyoplayer did. He said: “when you talk about polygamy as a solution of the “unnatural” state of monogamy.” If he meant what you meant, he would have said “when you talk about polygamy as a solution to the childcare issues that may arise in a monogamous relationship where both partners work outside the home.” The two statements don’t mean anything close to the same thing.

I never thought of the day care. I was addressing the problem of monogamy as a “deeply unnatural” state which is “rarely successful,” “chaining together” couples and the cause of them being “miserable, fighting and cheating.” That’s obviously a problem which needs fixing, which polygamy is “way better” at.

But, if Stoid now doesn’t want to call it a problem, whatever, someone should, because the vast majority of people are living in an inferior situation, and if someone were just to point out an alternative, especially the “better” one, one presumes they could be happier, or at least have happier kids.

Except it’s not a problem.

I did my 30 second google and found that

The reality is it’s not as rampant as we think, with 28 percent of married men and 18 percent of married women admitting to having a sexual liaison, the survey found.

I would hardly call that “rarely successful.” There are other estimate out there, but I didn’t see any which showed a huge proportion of cheaters.

And, we’ve only addressed the men cheaters in polygyny. We’ve ignored the 18% of women who are cheating. Possibly creating more cheaters since if they are cheating because they are unhappy, sharing their husband may lead to more cheating.

And again, I’ll do the math. If you have a group of people who do really well with polygny, let’s call them “A,” and if the number of men in that is A’, the greater the number A, there will be more single men who cannot marry. Since the number of women involved in polygny is greater than twice the number of men, it doesn’t take that high of A’ to cause a large social problem.

Even if it were an excellent way of raising kids, it can’t be for very many people or society itself is harmed.

Many people have brought up the mess that poly relationships can be. For example,

@Peeta Mellark

. . . provided the general tendency for poly relationships to descend into the most asinine and juvenile of dramas is dealt with.

I wonder if this is possible for very many people, and if there isn’t something intrinsic about group relationships which leads to drama.

[Sarahfeena]

@Stoid

I thought it was whether polygamy was adequte to make a satisfactory household for children, narrowing the discussion to polygamous marriages that are happy, the definition of which I took to be obvious, and you made a point of explicitly defining.

Right, and so it’s a lot easier to discuss if you define “polygamy” and “happy.” I just think there are many definitions of adult “happiness” that aren’t good for children, so I don’t think just saying that the adults are happy is an adequate premise under which to have the discussion.

Here’s what I said:

Do you think it’s truly accurate to boil all that down to:

“Polygamy = good + monogamy = unnatural = Premise of OP: Polygamy solves the problem of monogamy”

Because if you really believe that, I strongly encourage you to radically re-think the way you “interpret” other people’s words.
[/quote]
If the words TokyoPlayer has in quotes in his post are really your words, then you said a lot more on the subject than what you’ve quoted here. And might change one’s interpretation of what you said quite a bit.

No. I went digging for everything and that’s what I found. Because there was so little independent information about the people themselves, other people in the thread starting slinging around accusations that everything we knew about the people was bullshit:

So I looked for everything on the family and the church. And found absolutely zero support for this hysterical accusation, which was held up as the proof that the wives were all being dishonest.

Well, there’s the difference between us, and why I think your definition of “critical thinking skills” is lacking. What you describe isn’t critical thinking skills at all, more like intuition. Now, intuition, gut feelings, these are very good cues that further investigation might be in order, not conclusive proof that no investigation is necessary.

We know that we view the Browns behavior differently. I don’t leap to a conclusion that because we saw them express and specifically articulate their unhappiness that they must be even more unhappy in ways that we don’t know about. Nor do I think it is logical to accept their expressions of negative feelings as accurate and honest while rejecting their expressions of positive feelings as deceptive.

Nor do I believe that my gut is right about them hiding the truth because I won’t be able to prove that I’m rights since they hide the truth! I know I’m right because I can’t prove I’m right and that’s proof that I’m right. :dubious:

Instead, I looked for everything I could find about them and about their church. I watched all seven episodes, an hour of Oprah, the Today show interview, the Nightline interview, and I read the interview from before the show was planned.

After absorbing all that, and finding nothing significant leading to the idea that this people were hiding dark truths, I did put on my critical thinking cap and this is the rough approximation of how I critically examined the information available:

1. Reality shows, ever since the debacle of “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire”, are very concerned with background checks, and they don’t like surprises. If there was anything truly dreadful like blood atonement eviscerations, they would have passed on the show, at least with this family or any family associated with churches that carry out blood atonement eviscerations.

2. Your average person is not a great actor. None of the members of this family seems stilted, uncomfortable, unreal, furtive, or anything similar. Not Kody (who, on the other hand, does come across like a 10 year old mugging for attention), not any of his wives, and not the children. There’s no knowing looks, no choked off sentences. No one seems cowed or timid or fearful. They appear very normal, gregarious, friendly and open, and very much a part of the larger society. If they are faking it, the are the Barrymores of Lehi, Nevada.

3. There are a lot of people who are interested in finding some kind of dirt on these people, with gossip rags at the top of the list. If anyone was going to find anything, TMZ or the Enquirer would have it by now. Yet the best they could do were some unidentified “sources” speculating about blood atonement evisceration because that’s what they heard about some other guy that supposedly belonged to the same church, which is a pretty long way to go to point the finger at Kody & Co. Not very compelling.

4. And as for what you view as good reason to distrust their sincerity: the reactions and the words were not contradictory. Their words and reactions are in perfect sync, because when they are reacting, they verbally express what they are reacting to and say exactly what they are crying/angry/confused/happy/irritated/conflicted about. Nor do their expressions of unhappiness, anger and other negative feelings undermine their claims to perfect happiness…because they never claimed perfect happiness. Their clear expressions of their struggles bolster their claim to genuineness, it doesn’t weaken it.

In sum, I gathered all the data, ran it through my critical thinking processor, and what came out the other end was: yeah, pretty much what they appear to be.

And finally, if I had started from the same place that you did, believing that things were being hidden, I wouldn’t have ended up there after the investigation and processing I did. Even if I still had a gut feeling, I’d end up saying: “I had a gut feeing that these people were full of shit. But at this point the facts and logic tell me my gut got this wrong.”

Okey doke. I’ll let you get the last word on this part of it, because I don’t have time to respond to all this.

[Sarahfeena]

@CrazyCatLady

Actually, I was quibbling with Stoid’s assertion that her “as long as the adults can be happy with it” is functionally equivalent to the “healthy, stable, informed consent” conditions set forth in this thread’s OP. They’re not the same thing, not at all. Fucked-up people are happy with some seriously fucked-up shit that’s not good for kids.

Yes, this is what I’m trying to say, thank you CrazyCatLady. In fact, when I see the premise in such an argument that the adults are happy, it tends to put up a red flag for me. Too often adult happiness is used to brush aside the needs of the children.

[TokyoBayer]

@Sarahfeena

If the words TokyoPlayer has in quotes in his post are really your words, then you said a lot more on the subject than what you’ve quoted here. And might change one’s interpretation of what you said quite a bit.

I hope that I didn’t cut and paste incorrectly.

[Peeta_Mellark]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I wouldn’t call that a poly relationship, though.

I’d missed this earlier. What jsgoddess and I were talking about is a situation where two women are in a relationship and raising their children together, but they have an additional male lover that they share, though he isn’t involved in child rearing. It is poly and has a superficial resemblance to polygyny when seen from the outside, but because it isn’t all about serving the man’s needs and enforcing rigid gender roles it doesn’t create the same environment.

[Sarahfeena]

@TokyoPlayer

I hope that I didn’t cut and paste incorrectly.

I think you did OK.

[TokyoBayer]

@Sarahfeena

Yes, this is what I’m trying to say, thank you CrazyCatLady. In fact, when I see the premise in such an argument that the adults are happy, it tends to put up a red flag for me. Too often adult happiness is used to brush aside the needs of the children.

Yes. Absolutely. There was a thread a while back about a woman who was a willing slave to her husband. All fine and good, except there were children in the house. IIRC, (and I hope I do) she did back off from the initial impression that it was a “Yes Master” type of thing. This is something that teaches something terrible to the children; for the boys on how to treat women and for girls on how to be subservient.

[TokyoBayer]

@Peeta_Mellark

The comments about monogamy being unnatural put me in mind of this blog post.

This is an interesting read. I liked the comment

Chimps and bonobos are much more closely related to each other than either are to humans, and both display extremely derived social and sexual behavior. I don’t think either can serve as an analog for early human/hominid behavior. But even if it could, it would say nothing about modern human behavior, because humans have evolved quite a bit in the past 6 million years. We have faced evolutionary pressures which differentiated us from the common ancestor that we share with chimps, and so have chimps and bonobos.

(bolding in original)

Very interesting, and shows how meaning words like “natural” or “deeply unnatural” are when attempting to compare human behavior with other animals.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

@WhyNot

I was raised, part time, in a polygamous (not legal, of course) family, and I think it was wonderful. There was (is) my dad, my legal step-mom and another legally married couple, man and woman.

Just to clarify, but this is different from the hypothetical situation in the OP, right? This was not one man with plural wives, but two married couples. Were the four adults polyamorous, or were they two exclusive-relationship couples that happened to live together?

This sounds to me more egalitarian than the one man, mulitple wives scenario as described in the OP.

[TokyoBayer]

@Arnold_Winkelried

Just to clarify, but this is different from the hypothetical situation in the OP, right? This was not one man with plural wives, but two married couples. Were the four adults polyamorous, or were they two exclusive-relationship couples that happened to live together?

This sounds to me more egalitarian than the one man, mulitple wives scenario as described in the OP.

WhyNot says it was polyamorous. It’s quite different than the situation in the OP not only in that there were more than one man, but also the other couple did not have children.

[kimera]

@Stoid

Secondly, forming pair bonds isn’t the same as monogamy. Or rather, it’s not the only way to define monogamy. When I say monogamy is unnatural, I’m referring specifically to sexual exclusivity.

You can’t just make up your own definitions or ignore scientific evidence, which is what you’ve done in both threads so far. Pair bonding is monogamy, either lifelong or social serial monogamy. The term originated in the study of birds and was used instead of monogamy. There are different types of pair bonding with varying degrees of attachment.

Humans are a species that socially pair bonds. Our sexual dimorphism tends to pair bonding and, in the vast majority of human cultures, we have pair bonds. When we look at our primate relatives and compare our sexual behavior to theirs and our evolutionary pressures to theirs, it makes sense that humans are pair bonded. There are cultures that are the exceptions to this general trend, and that is because of the resource distribution in that culture. Sexuality can change based upon environment and it’s possible that humans could move more and more away from pair bonding.

There’s evidence that different hormone levels control rates of monogamy and desire for monogamy and polygamy, so it’s possible that those who tend towards monogamous relationships have those hormones, while those who are more polygynous lack them.

Pair bonding and social monogamy doesn’t mean sexual monogamy. In pair bonding species, we often see sexual infidelity at a low rate. This doesn’t mean that pair bonding isn’t the prevalent system, or that individuals aren’t monogamous. The term for infidelity is extra-pair copulations and humans have the same low rate that most other monogamous species have. Like voles, humans engage in social monogamy because a pair bonded system is better for raising children than raising them by yourself. Unlike chimps and bonobos, we don’t live in a society where males provide no child care. Nor do we generally live like capuchins where the females take care of their relative’s offspring (although there are some societies where this occurs).

Many people who cheat have no desire for polygynous relationships because they want to experience sexual thrill while stopping their partners from doing the same. Furthermore, people in polygynous relationships can and do cheat. If lifetime sexual monogamy is problematic, it makes far more sense that the solution is serial sexual monogamy rather than polygamy.

[WhyNot]

@Arnold_Winkelried

Just to clarify, but this is different from the hypothetical situation in the OP, right? This was not one man with plural wives, but two married couples. Were the four adults polyamorous, or were they two exclusive-relationship couples that happened to live together?

This sounds to me more egalitarian than the one man, mulitple wives scenario as described in the OP.

@TokyoPlayer

WhyNot says it was polyamorous. It’s quite different than the situation in the OP not only in that there were more than one man, but also the other couple did not have children.

Yes, they are polyamorous, living together with shared resources and responsibilities as if they were all married (which of course, they legally can’t be.) When any of them dies, I am the executor for all of their estates, for example, just as if I was the child of all of them.

And the two not legally my parents do have other children, just far older than we are. We see them at family gatherings, of course, but they were not in the day to day household when I was growing up. Just as my fiance, the eldest of 12, was out of the home before his youngest siblings were even born.

The question in the title and OP was if “polygamy” is an excellent way to raise children, not polygyny. My views on polygyny are quite different than my views on polygamy or polyamory, and much more in line with Dio’s, actually.

[TokyoBayer]

@WhyNot

The question in the title and OP was if “polygamy” is an excellent way to raise children, not polygyny.

Actually not. The question in both this OP and the other concerns polygyny. The title of the other thread reflects the TV show and the Mormon usage which should technically be polygyny, but is more popularly called polygamy. This thread continues the same usage.

@Sarahfeena

So **Stoid’**s thread about polygamy being a good setup to raise children. . . .
Let’s assume for our purposes here that the poly setup is a typical one in terms of structure…a man with several wives.

(my bolding).Stoid’s thread also is clearly about one man and multiple wives.

@WhyNot

My views on polygyny are quite different than my views on polygamy or polyamory, and much more in line with Dio’s, actually.

It’s never to late to participate in the discussion at hand.

[WhyNot]

No, I think I’d rather not.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Smart choice. It’s been a rabbit hole.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

@WhyNot

Yes, they are polyamorous, living together with shared resources and responsibilities as if they were all married (which of course, they legally can’t be.) When any of them dies, I am the executor for all of their estates, for example, just as if I was the child of all of them.

And the two not legally my parents do have other children, just far older than we are. We see them at family gatherings, of course, but they were not in the day to day household when I was growing up. Just as my fiance, the eldest of 12, was out of the home before his youngest siblings were even born.

Thank you, this is very interesting. This sounds like a Ursula K. LeGuin story. Were the couples heterosexual, or bisexual? (Just wondering how far the polyamory extends.) And were the other, older children also executors of the shared family’s estate, or only of their own parents’ estate? How many children in total were there in this extended family?

If any of these questions are too private, of course I understand if you don’t want to answer them.

[WhyNot]

@Arnold_Winkelried

Were the couples heterosexual, or bisexual? (Just wondering how far the polyamory extends.)

No idea. How much detail do you know about your parents’ sex life?

And were the other, older children also executors of the shared family’s estate, or only of their own parents’ estate? How many children in total were there in this extended family?

The four of them have asked me, alone, to be the executor. To be honest, I don’t really understand why. I’m the youngest and barely have my own financial life under control! But there are reasons they have not to have chosen any of the other kids, they simply haven’t shared them with me.

There are 5 of us in total, with an age span of nearly 30 years from oldest to youngest.

And sorry I was so snippy last night, I will go ahead and answer the question. I don’t approve of polygyny or polyandry simply because I don’t approve of limiting people’s choices based on their gender. It’s not fair (for lack of a better term) for the man to have the option of multiple partners and not the women, or vice versa. Now, I have no problem with a theoretically poly relationship where one or more people in it simply *choose *not to have another partner, but when it’s mandated, especially based on gender, I get twitchy. That’s when it does indeed get ripe for abuse.