World, Writing, Wealth discussion
The Lounge: Chat. Relax. Unwind.
>
Polygamy
This reminds me of the time when curiosity won over and I watched a full season of Sister Wives...
Marie wrote: "This reminds me of the time when curiosity won over and I watched a full season of Sister Wives..."What was it about?
It's a reality show that follows a polygamous American family. There are some places in America that it's practiced but the legality of it is iffy.
Marie wrote: "It's a reality show that follows a polygamous American family. There are some places in America that it's practiced but the legality of it is iffy."Interesting!
Apart from the dubious legality, were they otherwise content with the family life? -:)
Well it was a reality show so there was a fair share of drama. The guy already had 3 wives and wife #1 was encouraging him to take a 4th while wife #3 was mad that he was even considering it.
Which wife came out victorious then #1 or #3? -:)
I don't see polygamy as a problem. In some forms it may be a necessity. I see western society has a problem with it. Also, I see it as a form of unpaid servitude--why do we get married? Paying somebody can be expensive. Many people see a spouse, this is in all societies, as a form of ownership--I see this as a problem. Because of this abuse, some day it will dissolve into another problem. You can see it happening today. It all stems from having an income, having children: who pays for the children? who owns the children? who is responsible for the children? If society shared the responsibility, this would solve some problems. This is what happened in prehistoric times. Everybody shared spouses, and shared the responsibility of the children. Then humankind became selfish.
All problem relating to marriage and ownership stems from a patriarchal or matriarchal society. I don't know if having a polyarchal society would be better. Since it would mean democracy--a woman and man rule together, share responsibilities, a shared society. I don't think it would work. At least in this time and date. Any opinions to my answer?
Small scale polygamy (e.g., 2 or 3 wives) might work, but Western societies have problems with some groups where men have more wives. What happens is that a lot of children are born, but the boys grow up and discover that women are much scarcer than normal. To avoid fights or adultery, married men evict their sons from the town causing hardship and estrangement.As for the women, things get creepier and creepier. Since eventually all the men find having multiple wives preferable, women find themselves always having to share husbands with many other women, even if they don't want to. To keep order, a cult emerges, women are told to "keep sweet" etc.
That's probably the biggest problem with polygamy, that we always consider it in favor of the man...in these areas where it's practiced, how many wives get to have multiple husbands? And if we discuss it in terms of one wife, several men, suddenly how many men are going to be comfortable with that thought?
Agree with J.J. - it should be considered both ways, although matriarchal polygamy would probably sound even more weird -:) Remember hearing somewhere that men are predisposed to polygamy while women - to monogamy, but I'm not so sure whether it's not just a justification for promiscuity. Articles like this are probably pretty popular: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinki...As of GR's polyarchal society: I think the notion of a traditional family undergoes really drastic changes during maybe last 40-50 years and it's stability is probably somewhere between US dollar and Iraqi dinar.
Were we looking at strictly secular liberal societies, I'd say - in what combinations to live and grow children should be within individual's autonomy to decide as long as it's consensual and children are taken care of. Thus seeing 'families' of more than 2 grown-ups and lots of kids, may not be something unusual in such a society. Swinging, 'unusual' marriages and so on may just be the precursors. However, many would yell Sodom and Gomorrah, as I'm not so sure how many truly secular and liberal societies there are in the world.
J.J. wrote: "That's probably the biggest problem with polygamy, that we always consider it in favor of the man...in these areas where it's practiced, how many wives get to have multiple husbands? And if we disc..."That's a traditional polygamy as we know of it today. I saw a documentary years back, and it was about a tribe in Tibet. It is traditional for the wife to have many husbands, and she owns the property and controls the money. It focused on one newly married man. You talk about many wives sharing the husband as being a problem, you should see this documentary. After being married nine months to her, he finally got to sleep with her.
After being married 55 years this year, I think being married to one woman is enough. That is for a lifetime.
GR wrote: "After being married 55 years this year, I think being married to one woman is enough. That is for a lifetime..."I think most would agree, however would you say fine, if others/neighbors/countrymen had few husbands/wives?
My reaction to a male neighbor with multiple wives would be of asking myself if that man treats all his wives decently and with love, or is he running what amounts to a slave ring? If he proves to be abusive to his wives (or daughters), I would not hesitate to call the police on him. As for a woman with multiple husbands, I would tend to wonder about the moral fiber of those men. I know that this will sound old-fashioned to many, but I just can't think much of a man willing to be treated like a commodity and not be a full equal to his wife. I have the same feeling about the women willing to be part of a harem, as I personally respect women as equals and not subservient to men. In fact, that is one big problem I have about organized religions: the tendency of too many of them to claim in their 'sacred books' that women are inferior to men and must be subservient to their husbands/male siblings and family members.
Anyone who's willing to have more than one spouse has more energy and tolerance for conflict than I can imagine having. I like a simple, uncomplicated life.
Scout wrote: "Anyone who's willing to have more than one spouse has more energy and tolerance for conflict than I can imagine having. I like a simple, uncomplicated life."Is spouse = conflict? -:) That too, but I hope it's really something secondary, tertiary
Yes, a man can serve two masters: it is called a double agent. He can even serve three masters: it's a double agent who is in it for himself!
Nik wrote: "Scout wrote: "Anyone who's willing to have more than one spouse has more energy and tolerance for conflict than I can imagine having. I like a simple, uncomplicated life."Is spouse = conflict? -:..."
Have to say that having one spouse, in my experience, involves conflict. Having more than one spouse - well, you can multiply :)
As long as parties indulging in polygamous relationships lead productive and progressive lives with relationships intact for a reasonable period of time, such relationships are a healthy indulgence. Otherwise they are as sick as any other sick relationships.
Michel wrote: "My reaction to a male neighbor with multiple wives would be of asking myself if that man treats all his wives decently and with love, or is he running what amounts to a slave ring? If he proves to ..."I agree, Michel, marriage is nothing more than free services. And, when people understand that, marriage will take on a new face, hopefully for the better. I doubt it, since man is selfish and possessive.
GR wrote: "marriage is nothing more than free services..."Then, few marriages = more free services -:)
Nik wrote: "GR wrote: "marriage is nothing more than free services..."Then, few marriages = more free services -:)"
On the other hand, more spouses, each can have a specialty.
Thinking about the "free services" aspect, why is it that polygamy is most often about a man with multiple wives, and not the other way around?
Scout wrote: "Thinking about the "free services" aspect, why is it that polygamy is most often about a man with multiple wives, and not the other way around?"Should be considered both ways. It's just the multiple men polygamy is probably not as widespread... In some Muslim countries a man is allowed to have up to 4 wives, while polyandry seems to be rare. That's what wikipedia says about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
Polyandry has a problem. As noted in a documentary I saw. Men don't have a chance with sex. It took 6 months for this one guy to sleep with his wife. Besides, what is marriage for concerning guys?
Seems to me that men get more benefits from being married to multiple partners than women do. There's the cooking, the cleaning, the child-rearing that women traditionally provide. A woman with three husbands would have to multiply all that work by three. Exhausting!
Scout wrote: "A woman with three husbands would have to multiply all that work by three. Exhausting!..."In such circumstances, a woman would probably play the first fiddle and outsource most of routine to supporting husbands -:)
Right, husbands accept the subordinate role like women do. Not. That's my point. A woman as head of household, that might work with one man. But add two other men to that mix? Not a good bet. Three men in a household does not equate to three women in a household. Polygamy favors the male when he's dominant, not subordinate. That tells me all I need to know about polygamy.
So, can polygamy be cool for all the parties involved or not? Can it maybe alleviate the routine issue that erodes marriages and, maybe a little absurdly, result in reduction in the rate of divorces?
Polygamy or polyandry can work only if there is sufficient role-playing by the parties involved in leading a healthy family life. Because sex-lives are complimentary to professional and personal lives and not stand alone. So polygamy and polyandry should both be looked at as life-style choices by all concerned and not merely sex-lives. Only such an approach can allow the parties to lead a healthy life under polygamy or polyandry. If anyone is interested in knowing more about how human behavior works in extreme cases like homosexuality, polygamy, extra-marital affairs, etc. he or she can read my book "Life of Social Animals". It is a handbook on human behavior in all types of situations.
Scout wrote: "Polygamy favors the male when he's dominant, not subordinate. That tells me all I need to know about polygamy...."The bottom line is that any relationship like polygamy, polyandry requires a dominant individual, and submissive partners.
Anyone looking for a genuinely equal partnership needs to look outside the restrictions of polygamy and polyandry.
One of the key ways to understand the operation of power inside a relationship is to to understand how that relationship can be gracefully ended.
With polygamy, is one of the wives allowed to divorce the marriage and receive a full economic share of the household as she leaves.
Same with polyandry, can a husband file for divorce and receive a full economic share of the household as he leaves.
If all partners can't end a relationship gracefully without being punished by the others, there is a toxic transfer of power occurring inside the relationship.
Scout wrote: "Thinking about the "free services" aspect, why is it that polygamy is most often about a man with multiple wives, and not the other way around?"When I think about it, I would much rather share a man with other wives. I would be fine with sister wives, as long as we had enough space for us all to enjoy some alone time. On the other hand, having a bunch of needy husbands would be WAY TOO MUCH WORK and far too annoying to tolerate; just an absolute nightmare.
Plural marriage should be legal for every consenting adult over the age of 18.
So, you agree with me that polygamy works when the male is dominant, with sister wives, but not with a dominant female and brother-husbands? Polygamy sucks and perpetuates the male-dominant paradigm.
Holly wrote: "On the other hand, having a bunch of needy husbands would be WAY TOO MUCH WORK and far too annoying to tolerate; just an absolute nightmare...."Why, she'd be a queen? -:)
:-) Yeah, queen of two guys who have to share the housework and take care of the kids. And share her sexual favors at her whim. No problems there.
I think the core of the problem is this.1 to 1 relationship = 2 personalities that need to be compatible for it to be successful.
1 to 1 to 1 = 3 personalities that need to be compatible for it to be successful.
1 to 1 to 1 to 1 = 4 .... (and you get my drift).
Polygamy/Polyandry is just increasing complexity (if you have equal participants) and the chances of lasting success will decrease as the number of participants rise.
Nik wrote: "This shit lasted for many years:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo..."
Precisely because the relationships were unequal.
Seriously, how many of you guys would want to support two or three wives and their kids and try to juggle sleeping arrangements and keep all the wives happy?
Physically impossible. What a freakin nightmare.
Thanks for the laugh, Graeme. I needed it.
Scout wrote: "Seriously, how many of you guys would want to support two or three wives and their kids and try to juggle sleeping arrangements and keep all the wives happy?"They wouldn't be just 'their kids', I imagine.
If anyone's able to be happy and make happy a few, then it's a win-win. After all, spouse(s) having lovers/mistresses is not that rare... Why poor Hollywood stars and starlets, billionaires and even some US and other presidents need to divorce and marry again a few times? -:)
Nik wrote: "Why poor Hollywood stars and starlets, billionaires and even some US and other presidents need to divorce and marry again a few times? -:) ..."
Like the point I made earlier, more people in the relationship just makes it more complicated. 50% of marriages end in divorce, a group marriage has more people who can get dissatisfied enough to want out, so I would expect an above 50% failure rate for a group marriage (3 or more people involved, any configuration).
Let's talk about relationships outside marriage. Are we for or against?
In any relationship, compatibility is the main criteria. If people have statistics supporting successful compatibility in extreme relationships, they should do so. Unless and until statistics are not available, all polygamous and polyandrous relationships are either mere fiction or incompatible relationships about to collapse at any time. So please do not argue without any statistics if you want a non-fictional argument on this topic.
Maybe I should rephrase: shall monogamy become bankrupt in not that distant future?
Maybe there's always been a pretense of monogamy and all the while it's just been a pretense?
Could be. If once a formalized family was the prime societal cell, nowadays it seems in decline while alternatives on the rise...
More than half of marriages end in divorce because far too many people mistake physical attraction and/or sexual arousal for true love. Remaining monogamous is challenging under the best of circumstances. It is nearly impossible if the commitment is half-hearted.Marriage basically breaks down to two people deciding to become lifetime room mates. No matter how compatible or mutually committed, since no two people are exactly alike in every respect, room mates occasionally get on one another's nerves.
True love inspires one to place the wants and needs of the object of their affection above their own. Making their partner happy, even if it involves doing something one would rather not do, makes them happy. Love is strange, but well worth experiencing.
Maintaining a successful relationship with just one partner is challenging. One involving more than one partner is highly improbable, if not impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
Roughly half of the world criminalizes polygamy, while another - is tolerant and even permissive.
For many in the West the concept would probably be a little strange, if I put it mildly.. On the other hand, some things once considered queer, become normal.
So, why not, basically, if all the parties involved are happy?