Polygamy-- let's spread the love.

[Fishy]

uh, I don't think either of us really spoke about polygamy being legalized and society following suit without a second thought, especially not overnight? no shit.

and he wasn't speaking about women's rights so much as women getting the short end of the polygamy stick - that should be fairly obvious in his post, as he adequately expressed.

MY point was that if

a) men are so intent on having multiple partners, even if it's just to have multiple children because apparently that's what every fit male should be doing, he doesn't have to do it under legality to be happy.
b) women want to spend their time getting pregnant with multiple men and slowly birthing child after child (see how this privilege isn't exactly mutual with the man's side?) then so be it, but again, why must everyone be bound legally to achieve such a goal?

 

[X5Dragon]

especially not overnight? no shit.

Metaphors, serious business -_-

I also don't think he was adequately addressing anything so that's why I went into "cover all bases" mode. In case I didn't cover this women's rights does not mean to allow them to do anything men do, because we are whether some like it or not different and differences are good, its the basis of our mutual attraction. We don't go around shouting install stand up pee stalls for women, EQUALITY MOTHA***** for example.

Anyway Valk can come anytime and clarify himself.
--------

a) men are so intent on having multiple partners, even if it's just to have multiple children because apparently that's what every fit male should be doing, he doesn't have to do it under legality to be happy.

Well it comes down to moralities and religious beliefs of what is "right" but since I don't know your religion or personal beliefs let's just agree that the concept itself is not immoral.

b) women want to spend their time getting pregnant with multiple men and slowly birthing child after child (see how this privilege isn't exactly mutual with the man's side?) then so be it, but again, why must everyone be bound legally to achieve such a goal?

I'm sorry but "man does this so women should be allowed too" is not a good argument. I mean sure DNA tests solved one of the biggest hurdles to females practicing this but if you can go around saying men are inclined to mate with multiple females then females are inclined to find one mate until something goes wrong.

 

[Justin8649]

i completely support polygamy as long as it means i get as many women as i want but they cant have any other men

 

[Fishy]

i'm pretty sure women's rights exactly means that they should be allowed to do whatever men do. We're all people, and we have RIGHTS. Women only need distinguishing rights because of stupid men oppressing them. No, no one is begging for a woman to have urinals because their biology doesn't allow for urination as easily as a man?? that analogy is basically bogus, and irrelevant to what we're trying to actually discuss.

of course the concept is not immoral - I just said they can do whatever makes them happy. if c o n s e n t i n g adults choose to do things together, they can do whatever they want. I've already said that. I don't know how to make myself clearer.

and what DNA tests are you speaking of? I really don't understand the point you're trying to make after replying to my last statement. What I also don't understand is why you're trying to justify your obviously misogynistic viewpoint. You're basically saying that biological restrictions would suggest that women are incapable of exercising polygamous privileges that a man is better designed to do, ie. make babies. So take that off the table. A guy just wants to marry a bunch of chicks. So, it's totally fair if a girl wants to marry a bunch of dudes. No?

 

[Every1XplodeNOW]

I remember an episode of Bones when this guy was in a polygamy relationship with 6 women who were all sisters. They had a system that he would spend time with one women every day of the week, and than have Sunday to himself. Well mister rides alot starts seeing one of the women on Sunday and two of the other wives found out about it. So they to get back at him by slowly poisoning him, which would of killed him, except in the end the wives' father ends up shooting him.

I think the divorce and murder rates would just skyrocket if polygamy marriages were legal.

 

[X5Dragon]

i'm pretty sure women's rights exactly means that they should be allowed to do whatever men do.

I'm pretty sure it means allowing women to perform and exercise rights that are given to men that don't solely involve "Lulz WomenZ" as the only reason to ban them.

For example, elections, holding public offices, driving, etc.

However, to say EVERYTHING is just ludicrous as it ignores biology, one issue at of many that you consider a legit reason to ban or shun something. For example, Mixed Tennis Matches, forcing women to serve infront line war zones, SEALs, etc.

We're all people, and we have RIGHTS.

Of course you do, where did I state otherwise? We are however different, and that is OK, I wouldn't want to go around claiming maternity leave just for the sake of equality (although the jokes I would recieve if I ever claimed one would be epic).

Women only need distinguishing rights because of stupid men oppressing them. No, no one is begging for a woman to have urinals because their biology doesn't allow for urination as easily as a man?? that analogy is basically bogus, and irrelevant to what we're trying to actually discuss.

Extremities, not good in anything even in equality discussions.

of course the concept is not immoral - I just said they can do whatever makes them happy. if c o n s e n t i n g adults choose to do things together, they can do whatever they want. I've already said that. I don't know how to make myself clearer.

I just said that we agreed about this and no need to go into further details of whether it is necessary to make it legal or not.

We...can agree, can I O_o

and what DNA tests are you speaking of?

I am eliminating the reasons one would have raised against female polygamy (sorry my Greek ends where female versions of legal jargon begin) had this discussion take place 30 years ago or something, basically who is the father in case she got pregnant?

What I also don't understand is why you're trying to justify your obviously misogynistic viewpoint.

I don't take your "men are inclined to sleep around" too kindly either.

You're basically saying that biological restrictions would suggest that women are incapable of exercising polygamous privileges that a man is better designed to do, ie. make babies.

OK first of all polygamy is not a previlage. Second it's much more about babies, it is emotional and financial support. Technically women can exercise such relationships but I don't think we can say that it is sustainable.

 

[Codraroll]

Hey... wait a sec...

Even if polygamy was suddenly legal, wouldn't mean everybody would start practising it. Okay, it's rather common in some Arab countries, but it's not like Western culture would suddenly overthrow the entire "1+1" thing, especially after all those years of women's rights. Legalizing polygamy wouldn't mean that women would start seeking a healthy male to share with somebody else overnight. And it's not like every boy/girlfriend would go "Okay, now the law accepts it if you go date somebody else, so I guess I'll do as well".

We still have the barrier of consent to "stop" polygamy from happening. Changing the text in the law wouldn't change very much, I think. Except maybe for the Mormons.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Wait what... women have a strong preference/inclination for monogamy? What are you smoking?

Women are inclined to (a) find/captivate a male who will stay by her and support her but (b) have offspring of the male(s) she finds most attractive/believes to be most fit. (a) and (b) are not necessarily the same man (men).

Women are programmed to cuckoo the nest if they think it's to their benefit. Come folks, don't be so naive-- women are no more or less dedicated to "pure love" than men. When you live in a country like Japan that is homogeneous racially-- lol. It's not so uncommon here for a woman to marry their boyfriend due to pregnancy when the kid might not actually be his.

Housewives and delivery boys/plumbers. duh

 

[Fishy]

this is so frustrating

you cannot just say that "technically women can do x just like men but HAHA I THINK WE ALL KNOW IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE." there must be some bias you have here that goes beyond biology. please explain yourself.

as for everything else - sigh. I get it. There are obvious biological differences between men and women, some such that dictate what either of them is physically capable of doing. When I talk about equality between men and women, I'm talking about social equality. Equality is not allowing men to claim maternity leave. You don't birth children. (and if you want me to stop picking at your silly analogies and taking them seriously, stop creating such comparisons that have no bearing over actual equality rights, but physiological function between different sexes)

It wasn't me, or anyone specifically that said "men are more prone to sleep around." That sentiment obviously swings both ways between men and women. The popular point so far in this thread is that men subjected to polygamous avenues would, by definition, attain multiple wives. Women by the SAME definition can attain multiple husbands -- my point before was the obvious (and here comes the biological argument of equality) that men can propagate the species at a much faster/easier rate, more so than women. That distinction exists, and that is my argument AGAINST the idea of "well men are out to make the most babies with the best ladies and ladies, sorry, but you can do the same if you like, it's just going to take you a lot longer. see you at the finish line!"

I am not supporting that argument. I don't think that polygamy is "valid" because some men are bent on creating lots of superior babies. That is an idea - I am disagreeing with it. I think that polygamy is a valid want for some people because they simply want to have multiple partners. I don't care if they're going to have children. I don't care if they want five wives or five hundred - and I ALSO cannot comprehend the financial situations they would deal with, because this is of course, hypothetical. Theoretical.

So, theoretically, a woman could be just as financially apt as a man to support herself and her multiple relationships with multiple men, just as a man is (so obviously to you) able to have multiple wives with no problems. Biological differences only extend so far into a person's actual capabilities in their lives. It's all very subjective, personal, and singular to each case.

So, PLEASE explain to me again why any woman is less capable of sustaining polygamous relationships than a man.

 

[TheValkyries]

As fishy said earlier, I was referring to the fact that Women get shafted by polygamous relationships from a biological standpoint (as in to maximize child production and family size), which would set men above women as the more preferred gender to take multiple partners. Society would be more male centric and male preferential as they are the more prolific reproducers.

In terms of social history, polygamy is literally going completely backwards in the face of the progress that has been made towards equalizing women to the position of men.

 

[Smith]

Women are inclined to (a) find/captivate a male who will stay by her and support her but (b) have offspring of the male(s) she finds most attractive/believes to be most fit. (a) and (b) are not necessarily the same man (men).

This doesn't sit too well with me tbh. First of all, not all women WANT to have kids, just like not all men want to have kids, so I don't think (b) is necessarily valid. Second of all, an aspect of "attractiveness" for any mature woman is how fit the male would be as a father, conscious or not. I can't think of too many women that would go out with a boyfriend but then say to themselves, I want a better man to be the father of my child. I think that you focus a bit too much on genetics tbh, people want to have babies with the people they love and they really aren't so focused on Darwinism as you might think-people with genetic disorders still breed, after all.

 

[X5Dragon]

Sea Forest

OK first of all would you mind getting OUT of the forest so we can move on to more interesting stuff, like challenging a Yonkou? Thank you ^_^

---------------

Sorry fishy, but I just have to address this first:

Society would then become more male centric and male preferential as they are the more prolific reproducers.

I hate to break to you but Men impregnate women, not the opposite. We are the only reproducers here unless somehow we evolve to asexually reproduce.

In terms of social history, polygamy is literally going completely backwards in the face of the progress that has been made towards equalizing women to the position of men.

You are right, we shouldn't stand for biological shafting of genders so starting from tomorrow males would have their tools cut and women would get their breasts iron'd. We cool?

Also, you might be interested in this film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1282015/

Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

--------------------

this is so frustrating

You should see discussions between Zionists and Pro-Pals, epic walls of text I tell you, replies spamming entire pages.

you cannot just say that "technically women can do x just like men but HAHA I THINK WE ALL KNOW IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE." there must be some bias you have here that goes beyond biology. please explain yourself.

We had long replies because we weren't clear on many stuff but since that is resolved (for example you specifying SOCIAL equality as opposed to absolute equality) let us simplify the points again and focus on the one thing we disagree upon.

So, PLEASE explain to me again why any woman is less capable of sustaining polygamous relationships than a man.

Sorry to disappoint but when I said it isn't sustainable I was wholly focused on the biological aspect and nothing else. Women get periods, men don't. Women do get pregnant, men don't. A man's sexual drive is different from a women in a way it favors male polygamous relationship but disfavors the female variant because of the strain it puts on the latter.

EDIT: Please keep in mind folks this is an opinion topic and not a factual one, there are no "winners" just attempts to get views closer to each other.

 

[Shiny_Tyranitar]

Wait what... women have a strong preference/inclination for monogamy? What are you smoking?

Women are inclined to (a) find/captivate a male who will stay by her and support her but (b) have offspring of the male(s) she finds most attractive/believes to be most fit. (a) and (b) are not necessarily the same man (men).

Women are programmed to cuckoo the nest if they think it's to their benefit. Come folks, don't be so naive-- women are no more or less dedicated to "pure love" than men. When you live in a country like Japan that is homogeneous racially-- lol. It's not so uncommon here for a woman to marry their boyfriend due to pregnancy when the kid might not actually be his.

Housewives and delivery boys/plumbers. duh

Yes, because all a woman wants is a strong man to take care of her financially as though she were some sort of property so that she can sit behind and be a housewife. I bet all the ladies just swoon over you.

 

[mattj]

Honestly, I still haven't made up my mind whether or not polygamy should be banned by our government. On the one hand, people should have the right to do whatever it is they want to do, as long as its not harming someone innocent. But on the other hand, polygamy, at least the male-oriented version that is so common, is not a sustainable system, that could very well lead to social conflict.

Males and females are born at an approximate 50/50 ratio. If 100 males are born, and 100 females are born, then 10 of those males marry 20 of those females, 10 other males will not have females to mate with. Sexless, un-fulfilled men tend to be dangerous. This is why so many young men are expelled from the polygamous Mormon cults. There are no wives for these unfortunate young men and they cannot allow them to hang around.

Because it is an unsustainable system, our government may very well have a good reason to oppose it with legal deterrent.

 

[X5Dragon]

Mattj I agree but I just want to point out two things:

1) In these cults polygamy is mandatory.

2) Men unfortunately lose their lives more often than women, mostly due to war but I suppose one can bring up life expectancy (which is again influenced by war) as well.

 

[Ace Emerald]

Because it is an unsustainable system, our government may very well have a good reason to oppose it with legal deterrent.

It may be an unsustainable system, but I don't really think legalizing it will change anything. As this thread shows, most people wouldn't want a polygamous relationship. I really don't see what the big deal with legalizing it is, its not like society will completely change, and then we will have a ton of people without spouses.

 

[mattj]

Oh no no no, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not at all worried that if polygamy was legalized today, tomorrow morning I'd show up at work and everyone would have married two other people. The point I was trying to make is that the main form of polygamy here in the US that is currently taking place is having various negative effects. The foremost being child abandonment. Now, its a reasonable discussion to look into whether or not polygamy really is the cause of that abandonment, or what effect legalization or various regulation would have on it. But as for me, even one pre-teen boy being dumped on the side of a desert road because his "father" doesn't want him competing for "his females" is too many to allow polygamy, at least in its current, common US brand, to be legal and for all intents unregulated.

 

[Atlas]

Males and females are born at an approximate 50/50 ratio. If 100 males are born, and 100 females are born, then 10 of those males marry 20 of those females, 10 other males will not have females to mate with. Sexless, un-fulfilled men tend to be dangerous. This is why so many young men are expelled from the polygamous Mormon cults. There are no wives for these unfortunate young men and they cannot allow them to hang around.

Because it is an unsustainable system, our government may very well have a good reason to oppose it with legal deterrent.

you forget that some of those males would be gay. some will lead unhealthy lifestyles and fail to meet the requirements to appeal to those women. and some will only be able to get hard if a lover shits on his chest, making sex a difficult task in of itself.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Yes, because all a woman wants is a strong man to take care of her financially as though she were some sort of property so that she can sit behind and be a housewife. I bet all the ladies just swoon over you.

Well, I'm no Casanova, but I do enjoy my fair share of popularity with the ladies ;)

Of course that is impart due to my handsome face, athletic physique, great outward confidence, charmingly stupid-funny sense of humor, and impeccable sense of modesty... (lol)

But also impart because I'm brazenly open and earnest... about my needs and wants, about their desires as women and as individuals.

Yes, because all a woman wants is a strong man to take care of her financially as though she were some sort of property so that she can sit behind and be a housewife.

You spit at the above with a snarl in your voice and an air of superiority-- if anything that will make women hate you. It's only natural to want a partner who can support you, even if you plan on a career of your own. A married couple needs the fortitude to work together through the tough times, and a man who can carry the weight of the family provides what so many women desire-- stability.

You won't be liked by women if you are so busy treating them like "beings" that you stop seeing them as women.

I'm not interested in superficial, self-important women who cannot be honest with themselves, let alone me...

When it comes to an honest woman that is earnest about her practical needs, and comfortable with her identity as a woman (and mine as a man)-- we get along swimmingly. My current girlfriend is such a woman, and I cherish her for it.

Honestly, I still haven't made up my mind whether or not polygamy should be banned by our government. On the one hand, people should have the right to do whatever it is they want to do, as long as its not harming someone innocent. But on the other hand, polygamy, at least the male-oriented version that is so common, is not a sustainable system, that could very well lead to social conflict.

Males and females are born at an approximate 50/50 ratio. If 100 males are born, and 100 females are born, then 10 of those males marry 20 of those females, 10 other males will not have females to mate with. Sexless, un-fulfilled men tend to be dangerous. This is why so many young men are expelled from the polygamous Mormon cults. There are no wives for these unfortunate young men and they cannot allow them to hang around.

Because it is an unsustainable system, our government may very well have a good reason to oppose it with legal deterrent.

Oh someone thinking about problems with real human nature. No, you can't think about this subject logically...

Come on! We're talking about the RIGHTS and LIBERTIES of free-willed, consenting, adult, HUMAN BEINGS!~!

(also, those men should just marry women who are into multiple husbands... ta-ha!!!)

 

[mattj]

Oh definitely. There are myriad other factors that go into mating. But the only polygamous cultures that we have here in the US pair for life at something like a 1/20 gender ratio.

Out of 100 people, 10 men taking 2 wives a piece, 30 men taking 1 wife a piece, and 10 men living single could possibly work itself out with factors like homosexuality and some people just being loners or whatever. I can see that. But out of 100 people, 2 men taking 20 wives a piece, 10 men taking 1 wife a piece, and 38 men living single is not a sustainable model. Those 38 unmarried men (38% of that population, 76% of those males) are not going to just go "Hey, we can't find a bride. Guess we'll just have to be gay." Especially not in conservative religious communities. We see this in practice in the polygamous communities here in the US today.

And again, this is not just a matter of debating theoretical models. Something is definitely wrong with the polygamous communities we have here in the US. Children are being thrown out on the street. This is not acceptable. The models are just an attempt to explain what is happening.

As I understand it at this moment, because the brand of polygamy we see here in the US is an unsustainable model which is currently having unacceptable real life effects, I cannot support the legalization of polygamy in the United States. In fact, I'd support as strong of a crackdown on those communities as we can muster.

 

[Bad Ass]

myself personally, i would not want to be in a polygamous relationship. it's not something that appeals to me. however, if it floats your boat then go for it. i don't see why consenting adults should not be able to marry. if the wives/husbands are A-OKAY with it, then what's the problem here?

the only real issue here is that it will be kind of a tax hell to get it all sorted out, but hey if there can be good policy regarding that then i see no problem. you love who you love

 

[Chou Toshio]

@Mattj-- that's just not likely to happen. The mormons are not a good model because they're driven by religious ideas that push them to do what's impractical.

Women and men are smarter than that when they're not under the thumb of a cult, and in older polygamy based cultures, men would only take up wives they had the means to support. Women too, given the freedom to choose a husband (and in this case, choose a polygamous husband if they wish), would rarely marry into a family that can't support her. Scenarios where 1 man married 10 or more women would be rare, even in a society where everyone was conditioned to think of polygamy as acceptable.

 

[Aldaron]

My main concern with a cultural change to overall acceptance of polygamy is not actually a fault of polygamy itself: the inevitable rise in STDs.

I'm going to preface that I'm a Master's student in Math (and applying statistics to biological systems) so I'm perfectly aware of basic principles like correlation =/= causation and non confirmable evidence.

However, it is my purely subjective thought (and prediction) that a society that accepts polygamy will inevitably have a higher STD rate in population than one that does not, and that at the least makes me question how "obvious" it is that polygamy doesn't hurt anything. Yes, being retarded sexually (not using a condom) is on the polygamists, not polygamy, but it's still a "connection" if not a causal one.

Then again, just like the jury - race studies that showed performance and responsibility increases once an issue is put out there on the conscious level (jurists became less racist with judgments once it was mentioned race was a part of the case than when it wasn't), maybe polygamy putting sex "out there" much more will make the population more conscious of safe sex. I'd hope this is the case, but I'm highly skeptical.

 

[mattj]

Oh, you do have a completely reasonable point Chou Toshio. Its not like if polygamy was made legal tomorrow only the FLDS would take advantage of it. Many different people would definitely give it a go.

But dear lord, if its illegal right now, and the FLDS still does it by the tens of thousands, what would they do if it was legal? And what about the LDS? As far as I understand the only reason they forsook polygamy in the first place is because the US government said "Oh. You want to make a state? Yeah. No polygamy." afterwhich a church leader recieved a message from the almighty saying "oh... hey yeah... don't worry about that polygamy stuff..." I personally think it very likely that the LDS would shift toward what the FLDS is currently doing right now. Not every single member obviously, but I think some shift would be unarguable.

Which brings me back to my one and only real concern with polygamy; the children.

If polygamy becomes legal, I think its undisputable that the amount of polygamous relationships of all kinds will increase. If the amount of unsustainable polygamous relationships rises, don't you think the amount of abandoned children will rise at least to some degree?

If this was an issue like homosexuality where kids aren't getting dumped by the truckload on abandoned desert roads, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anyone. But the problem I see with polygamy is that here in the US, the main polygamous group is hurting someone, teen and pre-teen boys, by literally dumping them in the middle of nowhere and saying "Good luck." I just cannot accept that "side effect" and cannot justify increasing the number of young boys who have to go through this trauma just for the sake of personal liberty. I don't think that in this case personal liberty outweighs recorded and verified trauma to children. It seems more akin to pedophilia (in the sense of children being hurt) than homosexuality (where no one gets hurt) to me.

 

[ChildDaemon]

I'm really kind of bothered by the fact that we keep drifting back to arguments assuming that men will marry more women. For example, the argument that if 10 men marry 20 women, there are 10 men S.O.L. It's also possible that there could be 10 women out there married to 20 men, balancing it out.

I also feel like we may be convoluting the ideas of polyamory (loving multiple people and being in some form of committed relationship with each of them) and open relationships (basically having sex with a lot of different people). Someone brought up STDs and I don't see how polyamory would lead to this any more than someone in a monogamous relationship who cheats a lot.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who has been involved in polyamorous relationships (both as a person having multiple partners and a person who is one of multiple partners). So I am completely in support of polyamory as a concept. Whether it works in practice, on the other hand, is a much more complicated issue. It's definitely not for everyone, and I think there are definitely ways to do it wrong (exploiting the idea to cheat on one's partner for example). So from my experience, both men and women can have multiple partners and it can work; whether it works is more dependent on the individuals involved than anything else in my opinion.

One thing people have stated is they can't imagine having to love multiple people the same. And I would say it's pretty weird if you do love two people the same. When I was dating multiple people in high school and one of them broke up with me, I was heartbroken. The most common response I got, however, was "why are you upset? You still have another S.O." What people overlooked is that the two of them fulfilled different roles in my life. Yes, I was romantically and physically interested in both. But one of them brought out my bratty, playful, competitive side while the other was better for supporting me intellectually and emotionally, providing more of a constant. I loved them both. I could not quantify which I loved "more." It would be more accurate to say I loved them "differently." And I don't see there being an issue with that.

Frankly, monogamy kind of weirds me out, especially in terms of dating. The idea that when you're in a relationship, your brain just flips a switch and you suddenly do not find anyone else romantically, physically, or otherwise attractive just doesn't make sense. And then if you break up, that switch just magically turns back on? Seriously, what? Obviously there is a difference between thoughts and actions; I DO NOT condone cheating on one's partner in any way, shape, or form. But society currently seems to just assume that one's brain works this way, and I don't see at all why it would.

As far as legal ramifications go, several people have brought up good points as to exactly how the logistics go. As a whole, I tend to lean towards Fishy's opinion of why bother with marriage in the first place; just accept polyamory and forget the whole polygamy mess. But while this circumvents some issues it forms others. If you can only marry one person, are you going to pick one of your partners? Or just not get married? What about the benefits of marriage with respect to taxes, hospital visitation, rights to children, etc? You may miss out on those if not married. And fights over children could happen regardless of marital status. They do happen even in monogamous divorces. So yes, children could be potentially put in horrible positions, but would they be any worse than positions they are already put into in divorces? I don't know. I don't think I'm the right person to make the judgement as it's outside my experience; I just wanted to bring up the point.

I do want to point out also that at least in theory, polyamory is founded on openness and communication with all parties involved, arguably more so than in a monogamous relationship. Such communication skills could actually lead to less conflicts of interest when things such as divorce come up. But, of course, I'm being idealistic, and it's true that like anything else, people will find ways to twist things in practice. Which is sad.