What's wrong with polygamy?

Great Debates
61

The whole incest thing is kind of, oh, I dunno…icky? Imagine the mental trauma of finding out you’ve been unknowingly making out with your dad’s third wife’s sister’s…you get the idea. Blech. Maybe we need an arbitrary rule about kids - have as many partners as you like, but have children with only one of them. Or something.

Redtail - nope, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of a religious polygamous clan. However, the ideal living situation for me would be some type of communal thing. Best case scenario: My husband, myself, and one (possibly two) other woman who doesn’t want/is unable to have children of her own, and my two children. I’d never have the guts to actually do something like that with my parents still living, though. For now it’s all clandestine, but maybe one day when I’m 70 the neighbors will call me The Old Bisexual Lady With Goats on the Commune Who Lives Down the Road a Piece. :slight_smile:

62

I think a situation where I had two or possibly three wives would be nice, but the other women would have to be quite attractive to my wife for it to work well, and she’s pickier with women than with men, apparently.

63

That’s the standard point of view, but I don’t understand it. I’ll try giving my point of view without rambling too much:

It’s impossible to truly be “totally devoted” to any single person. People are, after all, people, and you’re going to have wants and needs that can’t be fulfilled by any single person, no matter how wonderful they might be. Likewise, why should you be so egotistical as to believe that you can be everything for a mate?

It seems much more caring (and honest) to me not to be so short-sighted. If you really do care for someone, you owe it to them to let them live their life as they want to. If that involves being with you, hey, works out great for you. If it involves being with you and another person, I suggest getting to know that other person. If your cherished mate sees something in them, chances are good that you will too, and when everyone involved is open, familiar and fond of one another, jealousy is nonexistant. Don’t be jealous that your mate can be happy with someone else…be pleased that they’re happy.

A true multi-partner relationship isn’t competition, it’s complementation. You wouldn’t think of building a table with just two legs, would you? :wink:

This is all IMO, of course, but it works out great for me. YMMV.

64

**
[/QUOTE]

I usually try not to actively engage in hijacks, Testy, but if a side question comes up and I have the ability to answer it, I will try to do so, even if it doesn’t directly relate to the OP. In that respect, I am guilty.

Zev Steinhardt
**
[/QUOTE]

Zev.
Never mind, hijack or no the information was interesting. I’m working in Saudi so, as you might suspect, information on Judaism in the Kingdom is a bit uhhh . . .limited. S

Thanks again.

Testy.

Redtail23.
The “S” thing is “smile.” Lots of them, VBS=Very Big Smile. LOL is Laughing out Loud. etc etc. My current favorite is one I had to ask about a few weeks ago. “BRBGGP” Turned out to be Be Right Back, Gotta Go Pee.

Anyway, you will probably consider me nosy and impertinant but I wanted to ask about the poly relationship you’re in. Not the personal details, but how you made it work. Maybe email would be better, I seem to be doing my own hijack here. S

As far as the way the thread seems to be going, I would also enjoy discussing this without referring to idiots who have sex with children, either their own or other’s. Maybe something like “What’s wrong with polygamy if the people aren’t total fools?” or something of that nature. I think this type of relationship could have many advantages both for the adults AND the children if it was done with a little thought. Maybe I’m off on that but it would have to be demonstrated to me just HOW I was off.

Best Regards to you both.

Testy.

65

In which case you’re mistaken and have a poor grasp of genetics to boot.

Barring some truly insane effective monopolization of women by one man, there is no way that polygamy results in any kind of genetic bottleneck.

This is not a bottleneck. (a) the woman are not being “taken out of the gene pool” – they’re passing along their heritage (b) everyone has recessive traits for a wide variety of diseases, ergo your conception of defective genes is defective. So long as the polygamous husband is marrying outside of the family there is no issue here. © unless there is inbreeding going along with this over a long term there is no reason to suppose there is any loss of diversity.

Ergo, polygamy per se does not create genetic bottle necks in any form (any more than a lion pride necessarily creates a genetic bottleneck.)

66

I really don’t care why society condemns polygamy; that wasn’t the OP’s question anyway. The question is why should the government be allowed to ban it, and that requires (in my mind, at least) a rational reason for doing so, not just “hysterical raisins”. And I don’t see why we have to ban polygamy to deal with incest or rape; those things can be made illegal on their own and banned on their own without also banning polygamy.

67

Thoughts on polygamy:

  1. In principle, I don’t see why you can’t allow polygamy— and polyandry (multiple husbands) and polyamory (multiple wives AND husbands). All are practiced in the US of A, but not completely openly.

  2. I admit that the fantasy of multiple wives has some appeal (it’s reading all those Judge Dee books, with his five wives in T’and China)-- my present wife can be the Tai Tai, and gets to boss around all the others. The appeal of this is lost on Mrs. Cal, however, and I confess the mirror fantasy of being Number One in her polyandry doesn’t sound as interesting.

  3. I have read a Muslim argue that, since the Koran says that a man may have up to five wives IF HE CAN PROVIDE FOR THEM EQUALLY, the practice of polygamy is effectively forbidden, since it is impossible to provide for all five equally. (Especially emotionally).

  4. It was a common Mormon claim that polygamy was necessary in the wilds of Utah, in order to do something about the excess of women over men when they first settled the area. But Mormon practice of polygamy apparently goes back to their Missouri dayd, and probably earlier. And the population figures apparently don’t support the too-many-women theory.

  5. Just to make trouble, I note that the Book of Mormon explicitly forbids the practice of polygamy. I haven’t got my references here, but you can find it in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book, among other places. They’re good at providing original Mormon text cites. I note, of course, that polygamy certainly WAS approved in the Doctrine and Covenants.

  6. Sir Richard Burton made his trip to Salt Lake City (written up as “The City of the Saints”) in order to compare Muslim and Mormon polygamy. He found the latter less attractive and puritanical.

68

So what is the downside, if any, to allowing polygamy under the law?

69

Well, a massive reworking of most property laws, tax codes, inheritance proceedings, insurance laws, child custody laws, divorce proceedings, and most government programs that pay out benefits. It would take many years to figure out how to incorporate polygamous families into our laws.

70

Not the type of bottleneck that will hurt all of humanity - there is no shortage in the world of people procreating. But for every 2 women “married” to one man, that is one extra less woman available to other men. For every 3 women in a polygamous relationship, that is 2 women unavailable, etc. Actually, i shouldn’t say “unavailable” - because that is your point - that they are available to their husband Cletus. Maximizing the randomness in the gene pool (on a large scale) is best for the species. Having Cletus’ genes as the common factor between all 9 of his wives (8 more than he should have for maximum genetic variance in the species, assuming nobody is cheating on anyone) cuts down on the randomness in the gene pool.

Yes, everyone has defective genes, but they only share those specific genetic flaws with one woman, not 9. If those extra 8 women were able to reproduce with 8 different males, they would get 8 different sets of defective genes, rather than the same genetic flaws spread out over all 8 of them.

Using the word “ergo” doesn’t strengthen your arguement at all, just FYI. I don’t know the exact mating habits of lions… do the females in the male’s pride stay with them forever and never reproduce with any other males? Is there a naturally occurring (or surviving) 50/50 ratio of male lions to female lions?

If polygamy were widespread, instead of just in Utah, that would indeed cause a very large decrease in the variety of genes in the gene pool. Maybe “bottleneck” isn’t exactly the right term for how it would work, but it would indeed be very detrimental to genetic variance in our species. Since the proportion of males to females occuring naturally is 50/50, there wouldn’t be enough females to go around, and less men’s genes would get in the gene pool. Of course, in the “real world” everyone just fucks the hell out of everybody else, married or not, so I suppose none of it really matters anyway, except from a theoretical standpoint.
**
[/QUOTE]

71

I don’t think polygamy would cause a shortage of women. As things are now, many women aren’t satisfied with one man and turn elsewhere to make up for the deficit - I imagine there would be even more such women if they had to divide their man’s attentions 2 or 3 ways. Also, I’m sure some women would have several husbands, which would cut down on the number of single men. A very attractive, not-too-picky woman would have no problem finding 2 or 3 non-jealous men to marry her.

72

jane_says - yeah, I’ve always kinda leaned towards some sort of co-op living myself. It’s very, very difficult to do in this society, unfortunately. We do idly discuss the idea with various members of our extended family (for us, that includes several dear friends whom we consider family, even though they are neither related to any of us nor involved with us as ‘intimates’). I think we may even manage it one day.

I don’t entirely understand your reticence about the kids, myself. One of my reasons for thinking that a group marriage would be ideal is the possibility of having a whole herd of kids while relieving many of the burdens that modern culture puts on parents. Since (in my picture) the kids would all grow up thinking of each other as siblings, regardless of the specific genetic relationship, there wouldn’t be a problem with ‘finding out’ anything at a (too) late date. But there ya go - mileage varies, eh?

But I hope you do get to be TOBLWGOTCWLDTRAP someday. :slight_smile:
Mekhazzio - exactly! Thank you! It does seem to be easier for some than others - whether that’s due to innate tendencies, rearing, or what, I don’t know. I’ve rarely had problems with jealousy, myself, but one of my partners has had some difficulties. Nothing that we can’t deal with - it’s usually just a signal that we’ve gotten too caught up in mundane details and lost communications temporarily. :slight_smile:
Testy - ah, I thought that might be it, just wanted to be sure. S back atcha!

I’ve no objection to answering questions about poly in general (although I make no claims to ‘expert status’), nor about my personal relationship as long as you’re reasonably polite. :slight_smile: If I think they’re too personal, I just won’t answer. :stuck_out_tongue: But I’m not easily offended at any rate, so ask away. You’re right though, this thread may not be the appropriate place. Maybe we should take it to MPSIMS? Or we could resurrect this thread (which for a time became the honorary Ask About Poly thread) - I’m sure Cheffie wouldn’t mind. :wink:

At any rate, I rather like your OP phrasing - and that is, indeed, what RoboDude says he had in mind.
Ptahlis - can you be more specific in your statement? Maybe pick one area of law to discuss? Obviously, laws would have to be reworked, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, myself. :slight_smile: I think part of the solution could lie in simply getting government out of the marriage business rather than rewriting laws to work around poly.
Oh, yes, and before I forget - Daniel, I never thought I would type this, but LOL! “Assume” all you want - so far, you failed to get a single thing right, not even the modicum of information that you could fairly easily have inferred from my posts in this thread. Evidently your reading comprehension skills are on par with your manners.

Since your pretend version of my personal situation bears absolutely no resemblance to my ACTUAL personal situation, I shan’t be taking your tax advice, thanks. You’re right - if that were my situation, I could claim those people as dependents. In fact, in one of my previous jobs, I saw tax forms where men had done exactly that - claimed both wife+children and ‘mistress’+children - perfectly legal. (I have no idea of the actual relationship between the two families; I just had to check the tax forms.) However, as I stated, I have checked on my tax situation and I’m just pretty much screwed, thank you very much. Amazing as it may be to you, I am actually more competent to judge my tax liability and options than you are, especially considering that you haven’t the foggiest clue as to my living arrangements.

Oh, and I’m still waiting for your evidence. Making passing references to things other people may or may not have said doesn’t cut it. Neither does mentioning a couple of instances of an outdated practice of a small fraction of a particular religious group.

Without that evidence, I can only suppose that you are, as usual, merely talking out of your ass due to your complete lack of any actual information. You seem to make a habit of that.

I tell you three times: Put up or shut up.

73

This is an interesting thread–one that’s made me think. Although I personally find polyandry, well, gross (sorry!), I respect and appreciate the input of people who’ve found it works for them. Thanks!

I suspect that our laws against it may stem largely from our perceived notion of equality. Think about it–in a perfect world, polyandry would respect the rights of all interested parties and everyone would have an equal say. Unfortunately, that’s not how it seems to work in the realy world. Most of what I’ve seen, heard, or have read discussed on this board indicates to me that many of us perceive polygamy especially as oppressive. It’s a patriarchial thing–the man holds all the control over the various women in his life, and it seems to me that I at least percieve little regard for what the wives want. “Put up or shut up,” the woman is told, “I’ll divorce you otherwise.” How we percieve polygamy is contrary to how we perceive equality (whether that equality is real or otherwise).

It doesn’t help that the countries who allow polygamy are largely Arabic with a long-standing history of strong patriarchical values. Most Americans, I feel, view these countries as horribly oppressive to women. (I’m not trying to condemn these countries’ practices, merely point out how I see them viewed from the American side). It doesn’t help that Americans seem to be inherently hostile and racist towards the Arabic states–witness our affinity for instantaneously viewing Arabs as terrorists (think OK City) and our (to me, overblown) hatred for Saddam Houssein, OPEC, and Iraq in general.

I think these two predjudices go a long way towards explaining why Americans have decided it’s illegal. Whether that decision is right or justified is what I guess we’re discussing.

I also see a lot of rose colored glasses being worn here. Some of the comments I’ve read seem like they’d work well in a utopia, but wouldn’t work at all for me in my corner of the world. You can bet I’d be damn hurt, jealous, and enraged if my husband told me openly and honestly, “Snicks, you’re just not filling my needs, so I’m seeing Sara here and I’d like you to get to know her so that maybe she can fill your needs too. After all, she’s good for me.” I’d tell him to get the hell out. And I’d expect he’d do the same to me if the positions were reversed. Not that America doesn’t suffer from tons of adultery, it does; not that men and women aren’t satisfying their needs outside marriage, they do; but as a monogamist, I’d still be damn hurt. Even if we were entirely open, I’d be damn hurt. But that’s me–YMMV. If it does work for you and makes you happy, I’m happy for you.

Snicks

74

The issue here isn’t whether polygamy/polyamory is right for everyone. The question is whether it’s so incurably wrong that it should be banned. I can’t see how the answer to that can be “yes”. Legalizing polyamory (and by that I don’t even mean granting legal recognition to supernumerary spouses; I’ll settle for decriminalizing the act of having multiple partners in a relationship) is not going to force people to have polyamorous relationships any more than legalizing gay sex forces straight men to engage in anal sex.

So don’t look at it from a “would it work for me” perspective. Look at it from a “does it hurt me if the guy down the street has two partners instead of one” perspective. That’s the one that should matter.

75

Your not allowed to have 2 wives BUT you can have a wife and a mistress, if your wife doesn’t mind or the mistress for that matter.

Its a wild world !

76

Snickers -

I think you are correct in that what most Americans think of when they hear “polygamy” is either Mormons or Arabs. Since both of those cultures are strongly patriarchal and sexist, their versions of polygamy are the same.

That’s why I tend to argue the point so strongly that those are NOT the only people practicing polygamy in this country - just to make people think. So thanks for taking the time to do so!!

I’m curious about the “rose colored glasses” you mentioned. There are people here (and others on the SDMB that haven’t posted) who are currently living in polyamorous relationships. These relationships can and do work just fine, albeit not for everyone (although the same can be said for any type of relationship, eh? :)). Still, it makes me wonder why you think they’re relegated to some imaginary utopia?

Not to quarrel with your feelings, at any rate. I’d be upset too, if someone did that to me. In fact, that’s pretty much top on the list of “How to NOT start a poly relationship”. :wink:

And to second what KellyM said - the point is most definitely NOT that all people should be in poly relationships. The point is that people who are shouldn’t be punished for it.

77

No, dude, that’s exactly the point. Have you bothered to read any of the thread?

You are NOT allowed to have a mistress legally in many, if not most, states in the USA.

78

Hmm, let me see here. 2 personal attacks. 1 Ad hominen attack. A complaint that I assumed without enuf info- which you refused to give me. A tossing away of my evidence without refuting it or discussing it. A demand I stop posting. yep. Ok, I got all the evidence you want right here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57835

79

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**
[QUOTE}
Hmm, let me see here. 2 personal attacks. 1 Ad hominen attack. A complaint that I assumed without enuf info- which you refused to give me. A tossing away of my evidence without refuting it or discussing it. A demand I stop posting. yep. Ok, I got all the evidence you want right here:
**[/QUOTE]

Well hey Daniel.

I guess the main reason for “tossing away” your evidence was that

A) It had little to do with the OP. (See RoboDude’s clarification/confirmation above.)

B) Your immediate ASSUMPTION that “almost everyone” practicing this lifestyle was a child molester, either incestuous or otherwise.

As far as people getting pissed-off at you, see item “B” above. In case it has escaped your notice, people consider child molesting, regardless of relationship, a fairly heinous crime and get a bit peeved when accused of it. This is especially true when there is ZERO evidence for your assumption. There is also your further assumption that people practicing polyamory are welfare frauds of some sort. So, you accused anyone practicing this lifestyle of being guilty of two, maybe three crimes. Why do YOU complain about ad-hominum attacks?

As far as providing you personal information; given your stated beliefs, your method of expressing them, the possibility of someone’s lifestyle being marginally legal, and the possible things your “Christian concience” might urge you to do, I’d be a bit reticent as well.

Regards.

Testy.

80

As far as I can tell, you’re the only one that actually came up with a valid reason why polyamorous relationships shouldn’t be legal at the moment. Still, it is a matter of divorce and inheritance laws which are subject to change. What about the possibility of a “pre-nup” of some kind? Admittedly it’s a fuzzy idea, but could that not be a vehicle to get by many of these issues?

Regards.

Testy.