Polygamy: Should it be allowed?

[cloudy]

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.

Most people that are born and raised in this area tend to stay here, especially those that don't pursue any education higher than the high school level. And, in many circles, quitting high school before graduation isn't looked down upon, sadly. Men, anyway, can still get a decent job without a high school diploma, perhaps that's why. My husband doesn't have his, and makes a very nice living.

But, I don't think that's peculiar to the south. I think that's any small rural community...or at least, that's been my experience, and I've lived all over the US and in Canada.

Anyway, I don't think that polygamy has to have any type of great acceptance throughout the country and in every small, rural community for it to be legal. Again, just because its legal doesn't mean that everyone will have to forsake monogomy. I believe it should be a matter of personal choice, just as gay and lesbian marriage should be. Making any of those legal doesn't mean that everyone has to leave traditional marriage behind; it just means that the choice is there. That's why I honestly don't understand the arguments against it. If its not hurting you (in general, not you specifically), then why so concerned about taking someone else's choice away from them?

 

[xssve]

Rights are granted by consensus, through recognition /andor enforcement, and the law often reflect this consensus - laws were passed agianst Morman polygyny because it was resulting in a lot of violence and social unrest, women were already scarce in the West, and men often prone to violence - basically the same thing you're doing, brooding on percieved injustice.

Even with the laws against it, they really aren't enforced except in case of underage females, because the population is mobile enough now that if you don't like it there, you can just as easily go somewhere else.

I really don't see anybodies rights being trampled on, where predatory practices are involved, bigamy or minors, those laws tend to be enforced, but I can't remember the last time anybody was prosecuted strictly for polygamy - if it started to get popular, that might change, hard to say.

 

[Recidiva]

Rights are granted by consensus, through recognition /andor enforcement, and the law often reflect this consensus - laws were passed agianst Morman polygyny because it was resulting in a lot of violence and social unrest, women were already scarce in the West, and men often prone to violence - basically the same thing you're doing, brooding on percieved injustice.

Even with the laws against it, they really aren't enforced except in case of underage females, because the population is mobile enough now that if you don't like it there, you can just as easily go somewhere else.

I really don't see anybodies rights being trampled on, where predatory practices are involved, bigamy or minors, those laws tend to be enforced, but I can't remember the last time anybody was prosecuted strictly for polygamy - if it started to get popular, that might change, hard to say.

Yes, that's my point. Even if "gay" is against the law...it's not prosecuted. It used to be. There are laws still on the books though.

Theoretically that's how laws begin to lose their bite, and then need to be changed. When social attitudes change to the point that it's distasteful to prosecute something that used to be illegal. Those laws were created by narrowminded people.

I do believe this shouldn't be illegal.

 

[cloudy]

Rights are granted by consensus, through recognition /andor enforcement, and the law often reflect this consensus - laws were passed agianst Morman polygyny because it was resulting in a lot of violence and social unrest, women were already scarce in the West, and men often prone to violence - basically the same thing you're doing, brooding on percieved injustice.

Even with the laws against it, they really aren't enforced except in case of underage females, because the population is mobile enough now that if you don't like it there, you can just as easily go somewhere else.

I really don't see anybodies rights being trampled on, where predatory practices are involved, bigamy or minors, those laws tend to be enforced, but I can't remember the last time anybody was prosecuted strictly for polygamy - if it started to get popular, that might change, hard to say.

*sigh*

I'm apparently unable to make myself clear on this issue, so I'll bow out.

 

[xssve]

I'm not deeply concerned about it, I'm merely relating the empirical reality - it's been done before, and there are certain predictable causes and effects.

Technically, I believe you ought to be able to form social/economic incorporations with anybody you want on an ssc basis - with polygyny however, you are flirting with a very militant demographic that would be prone to devolving into coercion - religion is a highly coercive form of social control, not based on rational assessments but on habit and abstract belief, and that would lead me to caution.

i.e., you could probobly get away with it on a limited basis, but as soon as other peoples rights and opportunities start getting violated, perhaps by people with whom you are not strictly associated, you're going to get a reaction formation.

You see, both defenders and detractors are doing the same thing, lumping it all together, "polygamy", it's just too broad a generalization - in reality , it's not always what you do, it's how you do it, and a few bad apples will spoil any barrel.

It's a case of there already being a traditional dynamic established, and it happens to be a coersive, religious standard - secular poly hasn't been around long enough to establish any widespread standards, and people tend to default to what they know, often quite militantly - they only innovate when that proves inadequate to overcome a particular stressor.

 

[xssve]

*sigh*

I'm apparently unable to make myself clear on this issue, so I'll bow out.

That one was addressed to recidiva - all I'm trying to say is that like amicus, there is often a huge difference between theory and praxis, if you want to try it, knock yourself out, like I said, my door is always open - but we can't even come to a consensus about letting homosexuals incorporate, it's not a good time to push for poly - i.e., the statistical probabilities for success are very low, IMO, but if you want to lobby your local government, that's your prerogotive.

 

[xssve]

As I say, it is legal among Muslims, but still not common for social reasons, except possibly where it is adaptive, among the pastoral Bedouins possibly, or more abusive practicves among the aristocracy - and they are typically polemicized by the clerics for it.

 

[Recidiva]

As I say, it is legal among Muslims, but still not common for social reasons, except possibly where it is adaptive, among the pastoral Bedouins possibly, or more abusive practicves among the aristocracy - and they are typically polemicized by the clerics for it.

We're talking apples and oranges. You keep describing polygyny. I'm discussing polygamy.

 

[xssve]

Polygyny is the most common form of polygamy.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Polygyny is the most common form of polygamy.

But we've already established the differences between the terms, much earlier in this thread. So let's remember that, all right?

 

[SlickTony]

A minor sect of perverts on a porn site is of little concern to anyone, as long as occasionally someone lets the air out of their balloon.

So that's what you're doing here? Well, if that's what you think you're accomplishing...

 

[Stella_Omega]

So that's what you're doing here? Well, if that's what you think you're accomplishing...

It must be hard to poke holes in anything with a rubber spoon.

 

[xssve]

But we've already established the differences between the terms, much earlier in this thread. So let's remember that, all right?

Point being, if polygyny, with a long history, and even semi-respectable in certain circle 'cause it's "in the Bible", still arouses fear and disdain, the chances of polyandry becoming acceptable are slim to none, if that's that's you're getting at.

Still like I say, I've got nothing against it, and it would probobly be easier for a woman to reel two guys in that it is for a guy to reel two women in - from a practical standpoint, it doesn't seem to promise any more difficulty than the other way around.

Polygyny as a fantasy, often involves bisexual women, it's practically a given, albeit the religious variety doesn't, so it's another hurdle for the guys. By contrast, another advantage of polyandry is that male bonding often centers on attitudes toward women, even interest/lust for the same woman, whereas women tend to mostly fight over men, and when they do bond over men, it's seems it's usually in mutal distaste.

i.e., there are distinct differences in the way the respective sexes bond with each other w/respect to the opposite sex.

So, from a purely psycholoogical standpoint, the socialization patterns for males, while not necessarily homogeneous, and discounting social controls that would probobly tend to negatively affect the social status of polyandrous males, might actually tend to favor polyandrous unions more than polygynist ones, at least over he short term.

All you have to do is make the "macho" thing to do.

 

[Pure]

i guess, though, the question isn't just: for the longterm can a women have two male partners, or can a man have two women partners; but should the state recognize or sanction this? should insurance companies allow "spouse" to include --"see attached list."

regarding polyandry, it appears that kerouac and cassady shared one woman for some time.

---
my problem, however, re legalization or recognition is that it would sanction some very repressive arrangement, e.g., in Utah, in the mormon fringe--- which, it seems to me is rather abusive of teen girls esp., and women generally.

 

[xssve]

Right, it's harder to analyze because there are fewer examples of it as a social dynamic - in the Sixties, the sort of informal extended threesomes like Kerouac and Cassidy were't at all uncommon, and still occur, sort of very sociable roomamates.

The only other example of it that I can think of in a modern context are the biker "Mamas", who are/were basically "crew sluts", not much removed from the domestic slavery of monogamous women for most of history, except they got a lot more sex, and probobly were less likely to be bred to death.

Still, not quite the probable fantasy of a bunch of handsome, oiled, muscualar men feeding you grapes and fanning you with Banana leaves - adn I can't see lawmakers rushing out to risk alienating the bulk of their constituants to legalize it.

I think in time, perhaps if more people come to understand the dynamics of monogamy, i.e., people are going to tend to default to monogamy, it's alwasy been that way, it likely always will, and they'll do it even in the complet absence of religious social controls which really probobly do more harm than good, inducing people to form dyads before they're ready, and for all the wrong reasons.

I think I mentioned in another thread somewhere that Baptists, who tend to be the most reactionary about the "sanctity" of marriage also have the highest divorce rates.

It's also a given that a certain percentage of the population will seek to expiriment with non-traditional, or non heterosexual arrangements, and from a strictly constitutional standpoint, you have every right to do it as far as I'm concerned if you aren't violating anyone elses rights in doing so, and legal and social stability is legal and social stability, it's essentially a human rights issue, however it may disturb your enculturated sense of propriety.

Reactionary religious politics remains a substantial hurdle, it's the most accessable route to social acceptance for the less adventurous - intellectually or otherwise.

 

[Stella_Omega]

i guess, though, the question isn't just: for the longterm can a women have two male partners, or can a man have two women partners; but should the state recognize or sanction this? should insurance companies allow "spouse" to include --"see attached list."

regarding polyandry, it appears that kerouac and cassady shared one woman for some time.

---
my problem, however, re legalization or recognition is that it would sanction some very repressive arrangement, e.g., in Utah, in the mormon fringe--- which, it seems to me is rather abusive of teen girls esp., and women generally.

The question of social and legal sanction is awfully masturbatory, don't you think? Rather more viable to talk about the marrigaes that are in effect right now without sanction-- that prove it can be done. They are the forerunners.

The issue with Mormon polygyny is-- forced marriage. Which is illegal no matter how many partners one is allowed, and the cult of mormonism has, I'm very sure, adopted it partially for that reason-- to create another "us against them" issue. Cults need to remind their members that it's "us against them."


Polyandry was historically known amongst maritime populations, where two sailors might share a wife on land. More to the point though, it is known right now in this country-- although practiced by less well-known people than kerouac and cassady. Pure, there are people right here on this board who have said they are in polygamous relationships. You can address them directly, if you want...

Still, not quite the probable fantasy of a bunch of handsome, oiled, muscualar men feeding you grapes and fanning you with Banana leaves ...

Dude, we're talking about marriage, not gigolo vacations in the Bahamas.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

The issue with Mormon polygyny is-- forced marriage. Which is illegal no matter how many partners one is allowed, and the cult of mormonism has, I'm very sure, adopted it partially for that reason-- to create another "us against them" issue. Cults need to remind their members that it's "us against them."

...

Dude, we're talking about marriage, not gigolo vacations in the Bahamas.

Can't remember the last time I was fanned with banana leaves. Must check on that.

Thank you, Stella. This was the point I keep trying to make; there are a number of things which polyamory is NOT, and which keep worming their way into discussions about it and slanting the issue.

Polygamy is NOT:
forced marriage
underage marriage
financially unequal partnerships
abusive partnerships
slave ownership
cult membership
religious fundamentalism
misogyny, or misandry
nor is it, sadly, being fanned with banana leaves.

If anything on the above is a problematic issue, which many of them are, then let's talk about that. Lumping them all into one category creates unfounded prejudices.

bijou

 

[xssve]

Unfortunately those things do occur and are associated with polyamy, polygyny specifically, and historically, the rule rather than the exception - thus any discussion of same neccessarily includes it, particularly any discussion that is centered around legalization of same.

If the OP had been worded more like Stella put it: The question of social and legal sanction is awfully masturbatory, don't you think? Rather more viable to talk about the marrigaes that are in effect right now without sanction-- that prove it can be done. They are the forerunners.
- then I probobly wouldn't be as inclined to bring up all the issues associated with it - legalization implies institutionalization, and polygamy, for better or worse has a very cultlike image.

Technically, a marriage is a union of dissimilar things, originally a metallurgical term I believe, more akin to "alloy".

The purpose of such unions w/respect to the economic as well as social incorporation of individuals we refer to as "marriage" is method for people to create small social networks - as Stella noted earlier, the most traditional form of family is not the "nuclear" family, but the extended family, in which social and economic co-operation can be quite complex and extensive - I have a theory that female orgasms have been selected for primarily because sex keep women healthier longer, delays osteoporosis, etc., mainly because grandmothers have historically played such critical roles in childrearing and so forth.

Anyway, ceteris paribus, a polygamous union is technically no different, and perfectly suitable when it works for all the same reasons as a monogamous union, and possibly even offers greater benefits in the current political economy when families tend to be scattered halfway across the continent, if not the globe.

Still, there is a lot of baggage associated with it, it's inescapable, I mean look how much baggage religious reactionaries attach to monogamous marriage - people always fear that "society" is breaking down when the instutions thay are habituated to show signs of strain - a lot of people associate civilization with electricity and cars - coded by republicans as "our way of life", i.e., big cars and wasteful consumerism - and a lot of other things our grandparents got along without and remained (mostly) civilized.

Hell that was the Golden age the reactionaries are so nostagic for.

I've been playing devils advocate here, but really the salient sign of social breakdown is a lot of deracinated people largely devoid of social networks of any sort - for theocratic reactionaries, any netwok but the one they're currently accustomed to is a threat.

My observation is that we're in the midst of completely re-evaluating what exactly social networking means in a post parochial/provincial world, and there are a lot of ideas floating around, which is good - acentric behavior is creative, individualistic, wheras centripetal behavior is an evolved response to external threat - the more threatened people get, the more reactionary they bcome and the more tightly they cling to whatever it is that they percieve that holds them together, their group identity, which is often consists of symbolically coded behaviors and may be difficult for them to distinguish from their core personality, to any practical extent.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone or talk them out of it, but there are some obvious pitfalls in terms of the way the question is posed in the OP, I agree with Stella, just do it, and worry about the legalities later.

I guarantee you it's going to take a test case and a Supreme Court decision to settle this whole business insofar as the legality of non-hetero and or traditional civil unions, and the first thing the opposition is going to bring up are going to be the cult specimens.

You have to have a legal distinction, and in terms of the alternative community in general, this distinction is SSC: it's the reason the BDSM community has become sort of an umbrella for all sorts of kinks that aren't strictly related.

The explicit emphasis on ongoing informed consent clearly distinguishes it from the various ad hoc forms of kink/alternative lifestyles, including Christian marriage in which consent is given once and once only and which traditionally, there were only occasional, limited, and informal means to address any greivances that might arise.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Unfortunately those things do occur and are associated with polyamy, polygyny specifically, and historically, the rule rather than the exception...

Bijou's examples, vis;

Forced marriage
underage marriage
financially unequal partnerships
abusive partnerships
slave ownership
cult membership
religious fundamentalism
misogyny, or misandry

Have all been associated with monogamous marriage as well-- since the beginning of that institution.
I agree that they will all be brought into any discussion, the way dog-fucking invariably comes up when we talk about same-sex marriages.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone or talk them out of it...

which would be an embarrassingly useless endeavor...

 

[xssve]

Right, but that's ok becuase it's heterosexual and monogamous, therefore catagorically moral, not like those creepy polygamous homosexual sex fiends.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Right, but that's ok becuase it's heterosexual and monogamous, therefore catagorically moral, not like those creepy polygamous homosexual sex fiends.

That's creepy polygamous bisexual sex fiends. Thank you very much.

 

[DeeZire]

A related question: Has anyone seen the Big Love series? Is it entertaining? Annoying? Erotic?