Polygamy: Should it be allowed?

[xssve]

It is already happening. I read a longish article in the NY Times (I think) some months ago about American men who cannot get married, even if they are employed. Some of the reasons given:

- Women don't want to marry them, because they can't generate enough income, or generate less income than them.

- The literacy rates of women have risen steeply, yet women in general prefer to marry men of equal or higher education than themselves

And it went on.

EDIT: found it but i think it is incomplete

http://phenomenologycenter.org/course/marriage.htm


Maharat

Heh, what I've been saying all along - republican economic policy - typically, they can't live with the social fallout of their own growth at any cost/cheap labor policies - or even admit to it, like amicus - so they blame it on "liberal values".

Invertebrates.

People just adapt, that's all, it's our nature.

 

[Pure]

i have nothing theoretically agaisnt polygamy (or polyandry), and certainly lots of ancient moral thinkers had no problem, either. look at such compendia as Deuteronomy or Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics (iirc).

my problem with the practice is that it's a common mark of a retrograde and anti-female society, and i'm glad that Utah was forced/induced to outlaw it. the ex wives of Mormons interviewed confirm some points above, that often the "wife" is contracted for immaturely, as a 14 year old. who can't resist parental and community pressure. (indeed she can be told: look, you can marry the big guy and have a comfortable place, and prestige, else you may have to marry a poor, mr. nothing.)


too, from the documentaries, the fundamentalist Morman enclaves, like that fellow on trial are *very* hard on the adolescent males, in effect, exiling them, to free up the adolescent females for the big guys. [again, perhaps in theory there's nothing wrong with this pattern that's common in the animal kingdom; the alpha male keeps his harem].

so in most historical examples, i'd be "with" the proponents of laws limiting polygamy or eliminating it.

---
ami, is as usual too vague and incoherent, but seems to think that 1-1 pairings for life are "written in the sky" or "written in the book of Nature."

as usual too, he presents no evidence for this position, simply speaking as a prophet/lawgiver. he raises the point that the perople here in AH who favor polygamy are relativist; if true, it's of course irrelevant.

many who view morality as objectively given-- e.g in the OT, traditional Judaism, Islam --had no problem with polygamy. certainly the Mormon rump groups who favor polygamy, just like ami, convinced of the objective basis for their moral.

NOTE: the 1-1 pairing folks adored the movie March of the Penguins, where the birds paired off and stuck together: later the male kept the egg warm, waited for his mate etc. amid the celebrations by amicus and his conservative and evangelical pals, however, no one mentioned to them that the 1-1 pairings of these penguins were for one season only.

see this article, for reports on conservative reactions (excerpt below):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/s...effea48de3fa22&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, told the young conservatives' gathering last month: "You have to check out 'March of the Penguins.' It is an amazing movie. And I have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. These things - the dedication of these birds is just amazing."

Other religious conservatives have seized on the movie as a parable of steadfast faith. In Sidney, Ohio, Ben Hunt, a minister at the 153 House Churches Network, has coordinated trips to the local theater to see the film. (He describes the organization as a Christian denomination with nine churches spread over Ohio and Minnesota.)

"Some of the circumstances they experienced seemed to parallel those of Christians," he said of the penguins. "The penguin is falling behind, is like some Christians falling behind. The path changes every year, yet they find their way, is like the Holy Spirit."

Mr. Hunt has provided a form on the Web site lionsofgod.com that can be downloaded and taken to the film. "Please use the notebook, flashlight and pen provided," it says, "to write down what God speaks to you as He speaks it to you."

 

[Stella_Omega]

Penguins practice serial monogamy, eh?

 

[amicus]

"...i have nothing theoretically agaisnt polygamy (or polyandry), and certainly lots of ancient moral thinkers had no problem, either. look at such compendia as Deuteronomy or Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics (iirc)....'

~~~

One cannot help but feel sorry for, and experience a slight amusement at the continuing antics, over the years of this forum, of the "Usual Suspects", as they continue to search, unsuccessfully, for a moral and ethical code to live by.

Or even to pass on to the their next generations and that I find sad.

After having rejected ages long theology as a base for moral concepts, and properly so, and long overdue, the poor souls thumb through the pages of ancient philosophy seeking....forever seeking....what?

The hopeless intellectuals of Europe, undergoing the horror of war in the early and mid twentieth century, and a worldwide depression and drought, declared, 'God is Dead', and went searching for a comfortable nest to the replace the opiate of the people.

They rejected searching for something to 'believe in', for they had been burned before, (literally, at the stake and in the ovens), and sought something to 'understand' to comprehend. But hurt and cynical at the demise of the Deity, they began seeking flaws in every pronouncement of logic and reason as a base of understanding.

They found temporary nests in various and sundry places, but inevitably, when springtime arrived and the chicks flew away, they were left empty and barren.

Oh, but they did search diligently through the 'isms' of formal philosophy and became more and more depressed at what they found and retired to that very safe place within the mind that brooks no challenge.

"Well, if there is nothing we can 'believe in', and logic and reason have failed, where then shall we nest?"

"Oh, hey, I know, let's believe in each other and our shared misery!" Voila!, egads and gadzooks, lightning strikes!

Enter the communes of that poor old miscreant, Plato, and his apologists.

Thus born the five year plan and the New Deal, followed by Camelot and the Great Society; we can cured the ills of the globe!

"Oh? Why don't the people march to our new and different drum?"

"Master, they still follow the old ways of the people and will not give up their sanctuaries..."

"Then what shall we do, oh wise one?"

"We must educate them...we must show them the error of their ways...we must blacken the sanctuary, we must destroy the family, we must teach the children, we must challenge all that is!"

And so it came to pass that wave after wave of the 'usual suspects' criticize and destroy, demean and deny the efficacy of all that has passed before.

As time passes, wanton queries arise, 'What then shall the people believe in" What shall they worship and value, to what goals should they proceed?"

"Tell them to believe in nothing and everything. Tell them there is no truth, no right, no wrong, tell them to do what, 'feels good', it is as a good a gauge as any...tell them anything...promise them whatever they want, tell them to share the wealth and the love of all..."

***

I know it is not Sunday and I was preaching...alas....

But...I had enough fun for a while...


see y'all later...


amicus...

 

[Pure]

i see it is as much a mistake to speak about Our Amicable Prophet as it is to respond directly to him.

sorry, guys.

 

[cloudy]

i see it is as much a mistake to speak about Our Amicable Prophet as it is to respond directly to him.

sorry, guys.

He Who Must Not Be Named.

 

[Stella_Omega]

He Who Must Not Be Named.

Frau Blucher!

 

[cloudy]

Frau Blucher!

Neigh!

(where's Shang for this part )

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Indeed.

If you do skim the thread, you will find at least two anecdotes about polyandry. Mine and-- I think-- Bluebell's?

That would be me, actually.

 

[The_Fool]

That would be me, actually.

I think that is legal in Kansas now...

 

[unpredictablebijou]

I think that is legal in Kansas now...

heh heh. Right.

If we're talking about actual legal marriage, no. There are no legal marriages in my household. There are, however, legal agreements of various sorts, which has been my point in here - legal marriage assumes way too much these days. The contract is in general sexist and outdated. It is property law disguised as a form of emotional bond. The wise avoid it, and create individually sculpted agreements, both emotionally and legally, for the practicalities of living with other human beings over the long term. So "legal polygamy" becomes rather a moot point.

I swore I wasn't coming back in here, but it's a subject I'm a little opinionated about.

Hi Fool. Anyone ever win that contest?

bijou

 

[The_Fool]

heh heh. Right.

If we're talking about actual legal marriage, no. There are no legal marriages in my household. There are, however, legal agreements of various sorts, which has been my point in here - legal marriage assumes way too much these days. The contract is in general sexist and outdated. It is property law disguised as a form of emotional bond. The wise avoid it, and create individually sculpted agreements, both emotionally and legally, for the practicalities of living with other human beings over the long term. So "legal polygamy" becomes rather a moot point.

I swore I wasn't coming back in here, but it's a subject I'm a little opinionated about.

Hi Fool. Anyone ever win that contest?

bijou

If you wrote, you won.....

 

[Belegon]

I swore I wasn't coming back in here, but it's a subject I'm a little opinionated about.


bijou

There are people here interested in reading what you have to post without the motives or bias of Ami...

just sayin'

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Thanks, darlin.

I don't make a big deal out of it, but I'm always happy to answer questions, even terribly personal ones. I actually help with workshops and other groups cause I'm rather a long-time veteran of polyamory and its pitfalls.

It's amusing to me that if one googles "polyamory" and finds the various larger groups, the first thing you're going to see is a lot of people talking about the pitfalls. Essays like "how to screw up your poly relationship in ten easy lessons" or "major errors people make when exploring poly". It's NOT for everyone. It's a great deal of work.

Quite worth it, in both the practical and the emotional aspects though, if one can handle the demands.

thanks again,
bijou

 

[Stella_Omega]

That would be me, actually.

Aha, I was conflating "bijou" with "bells"

Belegon is right; Most of us are pretty respectful in this forum, and want to hear about experiences like yours.

The Old Man and I had have an open marriage on and off-- more on than off in these thirty years. It really isn't, as you say, any more difficult than a monogamous marriage-- the stresses are different, but not stronger, and for us at least, many of the stresses of monogamy mean little...

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Aha, I was conflating "bijou" with "bells"

Belegon is right; Most of us are pretty respectful in this forum, and want to hear about experiences like yours.

The Old Man and I had have an open marriage on and off-- more on than off in these thirty years. It really isn't, as you say, any more difficult than a monogamous marriage-- the stresses are different, but not stronger, and for us at least, many of the stresses of monogamy mean little...

Yeah, see, how can I make effective passes at you when you don't remember who I am? That's a problem.

I do a little riff at workshops sometimes that basically suggests that all the regular skills which make a good marriage - honesty, owning your own issues, communication skills, conflict resolution, responsibility, material planning - are somewhat optional within a conventional marriage. That is, many can limp along with only the minimum. But in an open or poly relationship they are absolutely essential or you're going to blow it up, and badly.

It wasn't so much that anyone had angered me in here - I have learned soon enough what to ignore - but that it just seemed to be getting silly, with the whole 14 year old mormon weirdo theme and the whole deal with "surpluses of young unmarried men" (*sits and stares dreamily into the distance for a moment*) Uh. Anyway. There isn't much that can be said about that sort of thing, once you've said clearly, "these are two entirely different subjects".

But I love an actual discussion. Thank you.

bijou

thats: bijou

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah, see, how can I make effective passes at you when you don't remember who I am? That's a problem.

I do a little riff at workshops sometimes that basically suggests that all the regular skills which make a good marriage - honesty, owning your own issues, communication skills, conflict resolution, responsibility, material planning - are somewhat optional within a conventional marriage. That is, many can limp along with only the minimum. But in an open or poly relationship they are absolutely essential or you're going to blow it up, and badly.

bijou

thats: bijou

I think it was the old nursery rhyme, "Rings on her fingers and bells on her toes" that kept getting in my brain rings... bijoux... you know...

 

[unpredictablebijou]

I think it was the old nursery rhyme, "Rings on her fingers and bells on her toes" that kept getting in my brain rings... bijoux... you know...

all is completely forgiven. Squeaky wheel, and all...

 

[Stella_Omega]

all is completely forgiven. Squeaky wheel, and all...

So you'll make passes at me now?

 

[unpredictablebijou]

So you'll make passes at me now?

I hear you like girls. And floggers. And interesting toys. And cunning linguists. (Minored in linguistics. Studied oral anatomy.)

Besides, I've already made passes at you.

How can we couch this sort of behavior in an on-topic subtext?

Like, maybe, what I would tell my two male partners I did to you when I got home all sweaty and disheveled the next day? And how diplomatically and happily they would respond?

 

[xssve]

Yeah, see, how can I make effective passes at you when you don't remember who I am? That's a problem.

I do a little riff at workshops sometimes that basically suggests that all the regular skills which make a good marriage - honesty, owning your own issues, communication skills, conflict resolution, responsibility, material planning - are somewhat optional within a conventional marriage. That is, many can limp along with only the minimum. But in an open or poly relationship they are absolutely essential or you're going to blow it up, and badly.

It wasn't so much that anyone had angered me in here - I have learned soon enough what to ignore - but that it just seemed to be getting silly, with the whole 14 year old mormon weirdo theme and the whole deal with "surpluses of young unmarried men" (*sits and stares dreamily into the distance for a moment*) Uh. Anyway. There isn't much that can be said about that sort of thing, once you've said clearly, "these are two entirely different subjects".

But I love an actual discussion. Thank you.

bijou

thats: bijou

This is an actual discussion, the reason you don't hear about it is mainly that the Morman polygynists are extremely secretive, nobody can get within 5 miles of these places without getting shot at, you only get the same piece about that same guy and his wives in the OP that they recycle every 5 years or so.

Susan Sontag wrote a piece about polygynists back in the 60's, and I recall her talking about the same problems - there are some healthy example's but also a lot of wannabe patriarchs gunning for each other over 14 year old virgins. These people tend to be militant fundamentalists, not casual fetishists or commited utopians.

Ami of course, entirely misses that the baisis of this practice in Utah is patently religious and "moral", based on Biblical interpretations of what the pastoral Hebrews were doing 25 centuries ago, the differences in time, space and demographics be damned. Religious morality is pretty much the definition of "moral relativism", it always depends on who you ask.

Anyway, I get the sense that the proponents here live in urban areas, where there are enough people around that the idea of monopolizing females and hordes of deracinated young men sounds absurd, but in a lot of areas of the West communities remain very small, and distortions of sexual ratios are vastly magnified.

So, while I don't opppose it, strictly speaking, there are caveats, I think if you can do and not draw a lot of negative attention, then go for it, but I don't advocate legalization at this point, if it's neccessary and adaptive, then it will evolve.

Anyway, your description sounds about right to me, a poly household is going to have all the same dynamics as monogamy, just multiplied. If you can't make monogamy work, chances are good you're not going to make an egalatarian poly relationship work any better.

 

[cloudy]

Anyway, I get the sense that the proponents here live in urban areas, where there are enough people around that the idea of monopolizing females and hordes of deracinated young men sounds absurd, but in a lot of areas of the West communities remain very small, and distortions of sexual ratios are vastly magnified.

Actually, I live in a very rural area, although I live "in town" at the moment, and most people here would be horrified at the idea of a multiple marriage. Its dangerous to assume things about people, sometimes.

The feeling I get is that when people are discussing polygamy, all they think of, and take into consideration, is one man with multiple wives. The fact that there are women that would enjoy having multiple husbands, and that those husbands wouldn't have a problem with it (as in bijou's case) never enters their minds, and that's why we have all these tangent arguments about young men left out in the cold.

I still think that the people that have problems finding a partner would still have those same problems, whether polygamy is legalized or not. I certainly don't think it would make it any worse, and might, in fact, make it better.

Something else you're not taking into account: people are not stuck in one area anymore, not like they used to be. We have a very mobile society, and people move thousands of miles to be with the one they love - even changing countries and citizenship - there are plenty of examples of this even in this forum - so your argument about "distortions of sexual ratios" just doesn't fly. It might have at one time, but not anymore.

 

[xssve]

Actually, I live in a very rural area, although I live "in town" at the moment, and most people here would be horrified at the idea of a multiple marriage. Its dangerous to assume things about people, sometimes.

The feeling I get is that when people are discussing polygamy, all they think of, and take into consideration, is one man with multiple wives. The fact that there are women that would enjoy having multiple husbands, and that those husbands wouldn't have a problem with it (as in bijou's case) never enters their minds, and that's why we have all these tangent arguments about young men left out in the cold.

I still think that the people that have problems finding a partner would still have those same problems, whether polygamy is legalized or not. I certainly don't think it would make it any worse, and might, in fact, make it better.

Something else you're not taking into account: people are not stuck in one area anymore, not like they used to be. We have a very mobile society, and people move thousands of miles to be with the one they love - even changing countries and citizenship - there are plenty of examples of this even in this forum - so your argument about "distortions of sexual ratios" just doesn't fly. It might have, at one time, but not anymore.

There are distinct demographic differences between ruaral Alabama and rural Utah, religion for one thing, the difference between Protestantism and Mormanism.

For better or worse polygamy is firmly associated in protestant America with polygyny, for all the criticism leveled at it, I predict polyandry would subject males to orders of magnitude more social stress - the social controls applied to males are pretty profound: women might get gossiped about and called names, men who deviate from strict heterosexual ethics tend to be beaten and/or killed, almost certainly discriminated against economically. It's that macho thing, women don't typically go that far with each other.

So, I predict an uphill battle there, and again, I dont see it happening in small town America anytime soon, save perhaps in small enclaves where a more open minded ethic might prevail, a large urban area where there is more anonymity and diversity in general might be different, most people have more to keep them busy chasing their own bliss to overly concern themselves with what their neighbors are quietly doing.

Actually, I've been thinking about Alabama a lot, it's one of those areas where male:female ratios are lower - Mississippi as well - maybe you can shed some light on that, lack of economic opportunity perhaps?

Odd, because I spent several months in rural Mississippi and Alabama one winter, and I don't think I saw any women.

 

[Recidiva]

There are distinct demographic differences between ruaral Alabama and rural Utah, religion for one thing, the difference between Protestantism and Mormanism.

For better or worse polygamy is firmly associated in protestant America with polygyny, for all the criticism leveled at it, I predict polyandry would subject males to orders of magnitude more social stress - the social controls applied to males are pretty profound: women might get gossiped about and called names, men who deviate from strict heterosexual ethics tend to be beaten and/or killed, almost certainly discriminated against economically. It's that macho thing, women don't typically go that far with each other.

So, I predict an uphill battle there, and again, I dont see it happening in small town America anytime soon, save perhaps in small enclaves where a more open minded ethic might prevail, a large urban area where there is more anonymity and diversity in general might be different, most people have more to keep them busy chasing their own bliss to overly concern themselves with what their neighbors are quietly doing.

Actually, I've been thinking about Alabama a lot, it's one of those areas where male:female ratios are lower - Mississippi as well - maybe you can shed some light on that, lack of economic opportunity perhaps?

Odd, because I spent several months in rural Mississippi and Alabama one winter, and I don't think I saw any women.

Using an example of really marginalized, misunderstood people doing something, doesn't make a good argument.

It's the same as saying that prostitution shouldn't be legal because it's so clearly rife with disease and humiliation. It is NOW.

But there's really nothing inherently wrong with polygamy or prostitution, other that the social attitudes force them to be wrong because of the law.

 

[xssve]

In fact, where I live, I could probobly get away with either one and not suffer greatly for it - there are the usual violently homophobic subcultures, and this area can be pretty rough on homosexuals.