polygamy

[Alpha1]

There is a start. But I've read over that and the article does a poor job of citing its sources. At one point, it references criminological data but gives no name as to where it retrieved said data from.

You didn't read the actual paper. It's in PDF format at the bottom of the article.

 

 

[pudding]

... I'd rather not pay for an article. Besides, what if we turn to the animal kingdom? Polygamy is very successful in nature to the point where only 5%–7% of mammals are thought to truly form lifelong pair bonds (Monogamy), including beavers, otters, foxes, jackals, some bats, and a few species of antelopes and dwarf deer.

[~Kat~]

... I'd rather not pay for an article. Besides, what if we turn to the animal kingdom? Polygamy is very successful in nature to the point where only 5%–7% of mammals are thought to truly form lifelong pair bonds (Monogamy), including beavers, otters, foxes, jackals, some bats, and a few species of antelopes and dwarf deer.

Now you are comparing humans to animals, that is not good at all.

 

Do you know that male lions that take over another male/s pride, kill all the cubs. Stallions in mustang herds that take over another stallions herd kills all the foals in it? These are just a few examples.

 

I do not know how you can compare animals to humans as we have a brain to think with!!! Animals can not think things out rationally like we do. But there again, some men are animals if you want to go that route. More the merrier.

[7Deadly$ins]

I think it's a valid point, since we were discussing competition rates (though it isn't like if this were legal, suddenly everyone would do it) and many animal species do make it work quite well. Some species of primate manage it pretty well as well, in terms of keeping their population stable. Increased competition is a pretty good thing in the animal kingdom in this situation, though.

[pudding]

Humans are animals. According to the Dictionary, an Animal is:

A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Animals

 

And are we much better than lions? World War II, World War I. Those are much worse than what lions do. Besides, people kill other people just like lions kill lions.

 

And, actually, most animals are born with brains. I would be surprised to find a raven or crow that did not have one. Speaking of which, ravens and crows are very smart creatures. They can think rationally, as well as other animals other than humans that use tools to survive.

[Shienvien]

It doesn't take much for polygamist societies to increase competition among men by a lot. If 10% in the U.S. practiced polygamy with 5% of them with 2 wives, 3% with 3 wives, and 2% with 4 wives, the effect on the competition for women would be similar to China's current ratio of men and women.

What says there would not be an equal amount of women with 2-3-4 husbands?

[NobleOwl]

Does it always refer to polygyny?

 

Not necessarily.

 

God didn't command anyone. That's a man thinking with his Y chromosome!

 

Except he didn't want to marry either of them, Alpha.

[Thuban]

Im a supporter of polygamy, when the people engaged are consentual. Polygamy is so much more than just "migrating" to other people/couples outside of your own relationship. Its something that takes so much more work, for everyone involved.

 

There is a lot of negotiations, communication, rules... and every person involved has to play a part. Every relationship is different, and each of those extra people have to be agreed on by everyone already involved.

 

My husband and I have rather strict rules when it comes to other people/couples. If the interest is there to date someone, then we talk about it, talk about can happen, what cant, when things can happen. Theres scheduling, i have to meet the person (or he has to meet my person). That person has to know they are hooking up with a married person, that they are dating someone with a family and kids. If thees no qualms and everyone agrees.. then sure, by all means go date. If problems come up then everyone talks. These types of relationships cant work without pretty much non stop communication. It has been years since we have had a serious third. It ended up not working because we started failing at communication. There were secrets, and I wouldnt tolerate that. We werent talking together, we were talking through my husband, and not everything was being told that needed to be. We all decided to break it off. We are still friendly, shes got a husband of her own, and is in a happy poly relationship. The lessons we learned from that failed relationship has made our individual relationships stronger.

 

Every few years, we revisit the idea, we remake our rules (which honestly havent changed much, just minor tweaks to account for the kids ages and what we are comfortable with them being exposed to). There have been some dates, some flings, but right now, just having the rules in place, and the option to explore if we feel the need is enough. Poly isnt right for everyone, its not quite right for us, but if people are willing to put the work into maintaining a larger family relationship, who am i to stop them. Multiple partners can be a great thing, even when completely ignoring the behind the doors stuff. Some days I would LOVE to have a back up "mom" around to keep the kids occupied so i can have a proper sick day.

[Alpha1]

... I'd rather not pay for an article.

 

You don't have to pay or become a member for anything.

 

Increased competition is a pretty good thing in the animal kingdom in this situation, though.

 

Male ducks violently assault females to mate with them. Works for them. It's flawed to say that it's a good system because it led to reproductive success. Nature is a *. There's more to factor in than just reproductive success.

 

I think it's a valid point, since we were discussing competition rates (though it isn't like if this were legal, suddenly everyone would do it)

 

The point still stands that for every wife a man gets, that's one less in the available pool, and I doubt each would be canceled out from a woman having multiple husbands. The government has clapped down on it before, and it worked.

 

From the UC Davis link:

 

"Data from Mormon communities between 1830 and 1890 show that intra-sexual competition declined dramatically as governmental forces suppressed polygynous marriage [11] through a series of civil, legal, legislative, financial and military manoeuvres that began in the 1840s and had mostly ended by 1890, when the Latter-day Saints church officially disavowed the practice of plural marriage. The estimated ratio of the opportunities for sexual selection on males (Im) versus that on females (If) provides a key measure. In 1830, Im/If was 2.4, which means that males faced nearly two-and-half times the selective intensity faced by females. By the latter part of the nineteenth century, this ratio had dropped and levelled off at 1.17, indicating that men faced only slightly more competition than women.The size of intrasexual competition had dropped by more than eight times during the period when monogamous marriage was imposed. Bateman gradients, which provide a different measure, tell the same story [11]."

 

What says there would not be an equal amount of women with 2-3-4 husbands?

 

Because throughout history, there's nothing to suggest that this is what would occur if polygamy became more accepted. Polygamy is practically synonymous with polygyny. A big driving force behind the practice is religion. Islam, Mormonism (fundamentalist), etc. encourage polygyny.

 

There's also speculation that in some cases of polyandry, it is done because there aren't enough women, so it isn't necessarily a win-win solution.

 

Not necessarily.

 

Well, where's the scripture? If it's not in the Tanakh, then is there something in the Talmud?

 

And then you have stuff like this that seems to suggest that a woman can't get another husband.

 

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.

 

Leviticus 21:20 And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

 

Except he didn't want to marry either of them, Alpha.

 

Well, for one, wouldn't it be difficult to separate the facts of the marriages from the message given?

[thegreenrobby]

I'm against it.

I can't imagine how a wife must feel when her husband suddenly decides to get more. Was she not good enough?

[hazeh]

I'm against it.

I can't imagine how a wife must feel when her husband suddenly decides to get more. Was she not good enough?

And what if that wife was in love with the third person as well?

We're not just talking about a guy having a bunch of chicks. If you've read Greylight's posts, you'll see that the three of them- him and his two wives- are all in love with each other in an equal and faithful relationship. Why would you be against that?

[Rosedamai]

Or, there are cases where a woman has multiple husbands, you know.

[St. Jimmy]

What about a woman having multiple wives, or a man having multiple husbands?

 

I'm sure it's happened.

[WereJace]

What about a woman having multiple wives, or a man having multiple husbands?

 

I'm sure it's happened.

I know two all-male trios who live in another province, so yes, it does happen.

[Mommy_Kitty]

If it is out of love and no one is hurting becouse of it than i have nothing against such relationships and thus think that mariages with multiple people shuld be allowed, but only if it is pure love and not some religiouse forced thing with brainwashed girls forced into giveing love to an old geezard.

I`m a jelouse person too and i allways said i culd not love someone that is not only 100% mine, but i was wrong as i ended up in relationship that was kind of poly, but it did not last as the boy had to move away, and the girl went to study to Japan and sadly never came back.

Altho you can say that you culd newer be in such relationship you are helples about it when the love arow hits you, even the strongest mind is week when it comes down to love.

[greylight]

The point still stands that for every wife a man gets, that's one less in the available pool, and I doubt each would be canceled out from a woman having multiple husbands.

 

I don't -- in secular non-monogamy it is three times more likely for a woman to take on multiple permanent partners than it is for men. Men are more likely to encourage open relationship forms or one marriage with outside dating, while women are more likely to form permanent emotional bonds with new partners and bring them into the family.

 

Because throughout history, there's nothing to suggest that this is what would occur if polygamy became more accepted. Polygamy is practically synonymous with polygyny. A big driving force behind the practice is religion. Islam, Mormonism (fundamentalist), etc. encourage polygyny.

 

Except for what's actually happening in non-religious polyamorous communities now, where women are more likely to take more partners than men in long-term relationships.

 

I can't imagine how a wife must feel when her husband suddenly decides to get more. Was she not good enough?

 

Why is it always assumed that it's the husband's idea? And why is it always assumed that you "brought" someone in later, as opposed to starting out that way?

 

 

[epicguy10000]

Well time for me to throw in my $0.02 on this discussion

 

My opinion on polygamy? I don't think I would ever participate in polygamy, but if somebody else wants to participate in it, then I wouldn't do much about it, it's their descision, just because I don't think it's right doesn't mean I shouldn't allow anybody else to do it

 

and that's my $0.02

[Dr. Paine]

Polygamy is... probably not my thing (I've had no real romantic relationships, so I can't fully say either way yet ), but as long as everyone involved is of age, consents and is happy, I'm all for it and would proudly vote for anything that would give it proper legal standing.

 

That's about all I've got to say on the matter, sorry if it's not a lot ^^'

[Thuban]

I'm against it.

I can't imagine how a wife must feel when her husband suddenly decides to get more. Was she not good enough?

if the husband is making all the decisions without the wifes input, then its not polygamy in the sense that i know it.

 

There are smaller groups within polygamy, polyamory for one. Not all people/couples who engage in polygamy/polyamory take the marraige route. polyamory works on the same foundation of communication, trust and love that marriages /should/ have.

 

You can love people outside of your marraige. Just because your married does not mean you ability to love can only be narrowed down to who wears the ring and who is blood related. It might not be the same love, it might be. Why discourage people loving each other more. The way the world is these days, most everyone could appreciate knowing someone loves them and that they can love other people. Love does not comedown to just what happens behind closed doors.

 

 

Now to bring it on a more personal level:

If my husband decides he wants to date another woman, yes, I would have twinges of jealousy, however, our rules give the outline for either accepting it or saying no. If i say no, and he runs off and dates anyhow, it is then CHEATING. Which is handled like anyone else handles cheating. Lots of yelling, crying, anger and the desire to beat him upside the head with a baseball bat. This same rule applies should i decide to date a person. If he doesnt like the person, then it doesnt happen. My base marraige is more important than my desire to expand it. We have our rules, and when the rules are followed, there is no problem. If problems come up, we talk about them, and its handled.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Thuban

[satyr76]

I could never see myself in a polyamorus relationship, but as long as everyone is consenting, I have no problem with them, and I see no reason polygamy shouldn't be legal.

Edited August 3, 2012 by satyr76

[St. Jimmy]

*resurrects thread* Since I have nothing to add to the discussion going on in the gay marriage/rights thread...

 

After considering myself monogamous for the longest time, I'm currently in a polyamorous relationship(ships?). Long story short, I liked a guy while already in a relationship, we started dating, and now I'm madly in love with both of them. They both do know about each other and are perfectly fine with it.

 

I'm really glad I found out polyamory is a valid option... I don't even want to think about leaving one for the other. I love my boys.

[hazeh]

For a long time I thought I could only be monogamous as well, but recently I've been dwelling on the subject and have reached the conclusion that if I met the right girls, that I would be totally fine with a poly-whatsit relationship. c: I don't think I would want to be in the kind of relationship where one person is the focal point- such as, a girl with two boyfriends, but said boyfriends are not in a relationship with each other (nothing against you, Jimmy! Just an example c: ). I think if it came to me being in a poly-whatsit (honestly I'm not sure which term to use) relationship, it would be all three (or more...!) of us equally sharing a whole relationship.

 

Or, who knows. Maybe I would like it the other way. |D (though, my insecure half would probably want to be that focal point, which is why I'm unsure)

[catstaff]

I think if it came to me being in a poly-whatsit (honestly I'm not sure which term to use) relationship, it would be all three (or more...!) of us equally sharing a whole relationship.

If you're looking for a nice umbrella term, I like polyamorous. No connotations as to genders or numbers involved in any given relationship grouping that way.

 

I picked up the term about 15 years ago, when some friends of mine were in such a group. Two men, two women, and while I don't think the two men or the two women slept together, I know that both women slept with both men. They shared a house, had one bio-child among them although I don't recall offhand which two were the bio-parents since the kid called both women Mom and both men Dad. I heard they broke up a couple of years back (I lost touch after moving out of state) but they had already been together for a good 12 years at the time I'd met them.

[AngelKitty]

The only time I'm okay with it is if two or more of the participants are bisexual (like, someone has two spouses of the same sex, but the same-sex spouses are both bisexual and love each other too).

 

But, in the majority of cases, I find polygamy to be a form of adultery at best and oppression at worst. There's a long history of unbalanced power and sexism behind the act of a man taking many women (while those women are usually forbidden from taking other husbands) that people like to ignore in the name of open-mindedness, but that CAN'T be ignored because women are still an oppressed class (I'm not fond of the idea of women marrying multiple husbands, either, or of homosexuals taking multiple homosexual spouses, but there isn't a history of oppression behind those acts and as such it leaves less of a bad taste in my mouth).

[Shienvien]

There's a long history of unbalanced power and sexism behind the act of a man taking many women that people like to ignore in the name of open-mindedness, but that CAN'T be ignored because women are still an oppressed class.

All marriage has a history of unbalanced power and sexism behind it. And many one man / one woman only marriages, sadly, still are unequal in that sense.