Polygamy, For or Against?

[dasEkonomist]

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous.

Given the rampant adultery and divorce going around in these monogamous societies, it would be more appropriate to say that of 1231 societies noted, 186 failed to be monogamous.

The legal status of polygamous marriage certainly doesn't prevent or even mitigate the behavior, it merely alters the legal landscape. One need only look as far as the dude with his one wife and his 60 global jump-offs pulling checks. Society goes on.

I don't think marriage should be a government thing to begin with.

 

[Sevrin]

Absolutely, but I guess I have yet to see an example of modern day polygamy that didn't consist of crazy religious dogma and measures of coercion both societal and religious.

Well, here's an example that doesn't.

 

[EmilyConrad]

Big Love is one of my favorite shows! Polygamy interests me a lot but I don't think I could ever actually be in an open relationship let alone a polygamist marriage. I am however still super intrigued by how they make it work and everything that goes along with it. Sister Wives is another show I love. As long as everyone is a consenting adult and no one is harmed I don't see any problem with it. I wish I had some polygamist friends haha.

 

[Jupiter551]

Absolutely, but I guess I have yet to see an example of modern day polygamy that didn't consist of crazy religious dogma and measures of coercion both societal and religious.

Well, here's an example that doesn't.

Lol, well fair enough, though 2 of the 3 wives in that video sounded kinda grudging, like they didn't really WANT polygamy but they've come to terms with it. So it's about what the man wants. The terms "made peace" and something like "better to be a second wife than a mistress" or something popped up. No one previously in the thread has ever mentioned polygamy as an answer to population imbalance either lol.

Maybe it isn't founded on logic, but I still don't believe that someone can be completely in love with more than one person at a time, completely impartially. I think I could happily date more than one woman at once (openly), but actually only if I didn't love them. Many people would also suggest that the wives don't feel jealousy because they just don't really care that much what he does lol. It's easy to share someone you don't really care about lol.

 

[LadyLuna]

I am with the whole: In the case of consenting adults, it shouldn't matter (except incest because that's dangerous).

However, personally, I don't know... I can deal with an open relationship. But a permanent union between more than two people seems like it's asking for trouble. If others can deal with it, good for them!

I played with the idea of us having another woman around to help me out. Then I realized that I have a higher sex drive than he does, which is part of why camming works for me. So if his already low sex drive was split between two of us... well, even with camming I don't feel like I get enough from him, how the fuck would I *ever* get enough with another woman taking half of it? Then again, he keeps bringing up that she and I could do stuff together (of course he would... and maybe that would raise his sex drive enough...)

So then I thought about a partner-couple. Where all four of us care deeply about each other, and with two guys and two girls, maybe everyone's sex drives could be good. Plus, that would give me partners for videos since he's not comfortable with doing them and I refuse to cheat. (yes, I know, we're not technically "together" at the moment, but.. I still feel like it would be cheating, and I'm pretty damn sure he feels the same way.)

So yeah, I don't know if I ever could. Not on a permanent basis.

 

[Jupiter551]

I'll just leave you with this creepy video lol

 

[dasEkonomist]

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were all monogamous.

 

[Lydia_Deetz]

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were all monogamous.

 

[Jupiter551]

Re: the dangerous levels of Russian women imbalance

For the record, I call MiuMiu_, CalpurniaX and Angel_Fox for my personal harem, thanks.

 

[dasEkonomist]

Way cooler story than that one about the mormon cults.

 

[Nordling]

Way cooler story than that one about the mormon cults.

What story is?

 

[Jupiter551]

Way cooler story than that one about the mormon cults.

Really? How? Cos it's certainly less relevant to the topic :roll:

 

[dasEkonomist]

Hitler and friends are every bit as relevant to monogamy as mormon cults are to polygamy. It is the dictionary definition of blood libel at its best, and anyone here with any sensitivity to issues of bigotry and racism should recognize it easily.

The argument about the viability of polygamous societies is being made against the sum of positive analysis in the fields of sociology and anthropology. The vast majority of distinguishable cultures are polygamous, and polygamy is ubiquitous even in societies that play at monogamy. The legality of formal contracts isn't a factor in the behavior, a la interracial marriage, homosexual marriage, etc..

 

[Jupiter551]

Hitler and friends are every bit as relevant to monogamy as mormon cults are to polygamy. It is the dictionary definition of blood libel at its best, and anyone here with any sensitivity to issues of bigotry and racism should recognize it easily.

The argument about the viability of polygamous societies is being made against the sum of positive analysis in the fields of sociology and anthropology. The vast majority of distinguishable cultures are polygamous, and polygamy is ubiquitous even in societies that play at monogamy. The legality of formal contracts isn't a factor in the behavior, a la interracial marriage, homosexual marriage, etc..

The majority of distinguishable cultures are polygamous? Really? Bullshit. Show evidence. Polygamy is illegal in the majority of cultures.

Pointing to examples of dysfunctional polygamy is not blood libel, and unless you were using Hitler et al to make examples of issues regarding their monogamous relationships, it has no bearing whatsoever.

The behaviour of mormon polygamists regarding ostracisation of males and older, more influential males using social pressure and dogma to convince younger females to marry is directly relevant precisely because they serve the function of sustaining polygamous marriage in societies where gender imbalance does not occur.

I didn't use those people as examples because they were mormons. I used them because they were polygamists. If you think that's bigotry then you're an idiot.

 

[Lydia_Deetz]

The thread is, Re: Polygamy for or against?

Not, Re: Monogamy, was Hitler's one redeeming quality.

 

[Traditio]

The thread is, Re: Polygamy for or against?
Not, Re: Monogamy, was Hitler's one redeeming quality.

Oh - he was also vegetarian and drank no alcohol, wanted to reduce the influence of all religions - and was mad....

The vital point is - the claims are false. Okay Hitler married only one wife but he and his nazi were very fond of the idea of polygamy. So to take him as an example for monogamy is just... weird. He was just to ugly to get another woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Nazi_Germany

 

[GemmaMarie]

I think if ALL Parties are okay with it, then whose to say what someone does with their dick.

Seriously. If everyone in the relationship(s?) lol, are for it, then what does it matter to anyone. That said, I would never be okay with a polygamist relationship for my husband and I. It's not my cup of tea. But kudos to you if it's yours.

 

[dasEkonomist]

The majority of distinguishable cultures are polygamous? Really? Bullshit. Show evidence. Polygamy is illegal in the majority of cultures.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous.

Given the rampant adultery and divorce going around in these monogamous societies, it would be more appropriate to say that of 1,231 societies noted, 186 failed to be monogamous.

Pointing to examples of dysfunctional polygamy is not blood libel, and unless you were using Hitler et al to make examples of issues regarding their monogamous relationships, it has no bearing whatsoever.

The behaviour of mormon polygamists regarding ostracisation of males and older, more influential males using social pressure and dogma to convince younger females to marry is directly relevant precisely because they serve the function of sustaining polygamous marriage in societies where gender imbalance does not occur.

Polygamous marriage doesn't really have any bearing on polygamous behavior, only on the legal recognition of contracts pertaining to the behavior. Also, older more influential males use social pressure and dogma to convince younger females to have sex with them everywhere all day every day. Marriage of any kind isn't even kinda-sorta required, and where it exists adultery is rampant.

Would you describe Tiger Woods as monogamous? How about George Clooney? Gene Simmons?

 

[Nordling]

The majority of distinguishable cultures are polygamous? Really? Bullshit. Show evidence. Polygamy is illegal in the majority of cultures.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous.

Given the rampant adultery and divorce going around in these monogamous societies, it would be more appropriate to say that of 1,231 societies noted, 186 failed to be monogamous.

Pointing to examples of dysfunctional polygamy is not blood libel, and unless you were using Hitler et al to make examples of issues regarding their monogamous relationships, it has no bearing whatsoever.

The behaviour of mormon polygamists regarding ostracisation of males and older, more influential males using social pressure and dogma to convince younger females to marry is directly relevant precisely because they serve the function of sustaining polygamous marriage in societies where gender imbalance does not occur.

Polygamous marriage doesn't really have any bearing on polygamous behavior, only on the legal recognition of contracts pertaining to the behavior. Also, older more influential males use social pressure and dogma to convince younger females to have sex with them everywhere all day every day. Marriage of any kind isn't even kinda-sorta required, and where it exists adultery is rampant.

Would you describe Tiger Woods as monogamous? How about George Clooney? Gene Simmons?

Serial monogamous, yes. with outside benefits.

 

[Jupiter551]

Would you describe Tiger Woods as monogamous? How about George Clooney? Gene Simmons?

Infidelity = polygamy now? Jesus. :violence-smack:

Are you aware that polygamy means GROUP MARRIAGE? Cheating on your wife doesn't make you a polygamist.

Polygamous marriage has everything to do with polygamous behaviour because to be polygamous is to be married to several people at once. Having sex with the entire cast of High School Musical, at the same time, IS NOT POLYGAMY

 

[JickyJuly]

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were all monogamous.

Hitler had special boys. Probably pretty easy not to chase women when you're into fondling baby peen. Jussayin.

 

[Jupiter551]

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous.

Hey btw, when you copy/paste another source word-for-word it's customary and polite to give some indication that they aren't in fact your own words. Even if the source is wikipedia.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous.

 

[dasEkonomist]

Would you describe Tiger Woods as monogamous? How about George Clooney? Gene Simmons?

Infidelity = polygamy now? Jesus. :violence-smack:

Are you aware that polygamy means GROUP MARRIAGE? Cheating on your wife doesn't make you a polygamist.

Polygamous marriage has everything to do with polygamous behaviour because to be polygamous is to be married to several people at once. Having sex with the entire cast of High School Musical, at the same time, IS NOT POLYGAMY

Again, marriage is entirely tangential to polygamy AND monogamy. You should consider reading the rest of that wikipedia entry you found. After that you should read the monogamy entry. The first few sentences lay it out pretty clearly on that one.

If that is not good enough for you perhaps you should take some free online courses in social/cultural anthropology or sociobiology. I paid for mine so I could get some signed papers to put on my wall, but the free ones really are just as good.

http://education-portal.com/articles/Li ... rials.html

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous.

Hey btw, when you copy/paste another source word-for-word it's customary and polite to give some indication that they aren't in fact your own words. Even if the source is wikipedia.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous.

1) LOL.. This thread isn't a peer-reviewed article, a newspaper article, or even a middle school report... I can assure you that were I being graded or published things would look very different.

2) The source has been bolded. I didn't bother quoting wikipedia because wikipedia was paraphrasing.

 

[Jupiter551]

Again, marriage is entirely tangential to polygamy AND monogamy. You should consider reading the rest of that wikipedia entry you found. After that you should read the monogamy entry. The first few sentences lay it out pretty clearly on that one.

It sure does, I like where it says in the first line of the article:

Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "often married").

I hope your university recognises the work you've contributed to this field since getting your degree - from suggesting that showing examples of polygamy is "blood libel", to reflections upon the monogamous nature of dictators, and even suggesting that cheating on one's girlfriend makes one a polygamist.

You've really made some valuable contributions to the discussion about polygamy

 

[dasEkonomist]

Again, marriage is entirely tangential to polygamy AND monogamy. You should consider reading the rest of that wikipedia entry you found. After that you should read the monogamy entry. The first few sentences lay it out pretty clearly on that one.

It sure does, I like where it says in the first line of the article:

Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "often married").

You appear to have mistaken the etymology of polygamy for the definition.

I hope your university recognises the work you've contributed to this field since getting your degree - from suggesting that showing examples of polygamy is "blood libel", to reflections upon the monogamous nature of dictators, and even suggesting that cheating on one's girlfriend makes one a polygamist.

You've really made some valuable contributions to the discussion about polygamy

Here we go yet again using your own sources.

Monogamy refers to the state of having only one mate at any one time; the term is applied to the social behavior of some animals, [1] and to a form of marriage in which an individual has only one spouse at any one time. In current usage monogamy often refers to having one sexual partner irrespective of marriage or reproduction.

Clear?

Like monogamy, the term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether the relationships are recognized by the state.

Clear?

Here's a really good source you may have heard of before...

po·lyg·a·my   [puh-lig-uh-mee]
noun
1.
the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, especially wife, at one time. Compare bigamy ( def. 1 ) , monogamy ( def. 1 ) .
2.
Zoology . the habit or system of mating with more than one individual, either simultaneously or successively.

Clear?

Polygamy is a form of marriage that is entirely tangential to the biological behavior of polygamy. This behavior is ubiquitous, and includes what many people think of as 'monogamy'. When you bang 40 girls then marry one your behavior is polygamous, and your marriage is monogamous. When you marry one girl then go bang 40 girls your behavior is polygamous and your marriage is monogamous. Clear yet?

Now you can apologize, I can forgive you, and we can be friends!

 

[Lydia_Deetz]

For the love of GOD you two!

 

[dasEkonomist]

For the love of GOD you two!

Broke my thanks cherry with that one...

 

[Sevrin]

The only thing worse than internet lawyers is internet sociologists. No wait: internet doctors not only suck but can also be dangerous, so they're probably the worst. I mean, if they weren't internet-only intellectuals, they'd get their intellectual rocks off on sites that actually invite their input, and not sites created for the discussion of the finer points of under-butt tanlines, anal colouring, video games and which TV star you'd like to fuck.

In fact, I'm starting to think that all internet-based professions suck with the notable exceptions of internet strippers, internet dancers, internet geishas and of course, the crème de la crème: internet whores.

 

[dasEkonomist]

Tapped out and PMed.

Lydia was right.

 

[AlexLady]

Anyways.

I'm against. Not only because I believe monogamy is healthier for a species as a whole, but because I don't think that our law system was designed for more than two people in a marriage. If it was re-written that'd be one thing, but right now it just wouldn't work.