|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Polygamy
Polygamy was common in ancient times, especially for nomadic tribes. In the modern world it's often viewed as unacceptable in Western and Christian countries, yet most of the major figures from the Jewish and Christian scriptures (Old Testament) were polygamists. It's still practiced in many African countries and in some other places around the world. It's also practiced by some Mormons in the US and other countries today.
Theoretically, it offers more positives than negatives for all involved. The husband doesn't 'cheat' on his wives because he has as many women as he needs and can afford, the women have 'sisters' who work with them and help look after any children and other responsibilities. Everyone benefits from 'community' environment, so in theory nobody would feel lonely.
We assume that in the modern world, a polygamous relationship would see the husband and some, if not all of the wives working, which would also result in financial prosperity (all of the ancient patriarchs were prosperous). We would also assume that a polygamous man would not be trying to marry every woman that took his fancy, but be responsible enough to limit the number of wives he had.
Theoretically, it offers more positives than negatives for all involved. The husband doesn't 'cheat' on his wives because he has as many women as he needs and can afford, the women have 'sisters' who work with them and help look after any children and other responsibilities. Everyone benefits from 'community' environment, so in theory nobody would feel lonely.
We assume that in the modern world, a polygamous relationship would see the husband and some, if not all of the wives working, which would also result in financial prosperity (all of the ancient patriarchs were prosperous). We would also assume that a polygamous man would not be trying to marry every woman that took his fancy, but be responsible enough to limit the number of wives he had.
Hey Tiger,
You use the word "polygamy" but your examples are all of "polygyny". How about "polyanry"? Do you think they'd be any different or would the advantages apply to both?
Personally, I think there would be high levels of competition and envy between the multiple husbands or wives that could potentially damage the family group as a whole but also be psychologically damaging to its younger members (children).
I think it would be a rare and special group of people that could get any form of polygamy to work in today's individualist society.
Take care,
Eyvind
You use the word "polygamy" but your examples are all of "polygyny". How about "polyanry"? Do you think they'd be any different or would the advantages apply to both?
| Quote: |
| Everyone benefits from 'community' environment, so in theory nobody would feel lonely.
|
Personally, I think there would be high levels of competition and envy between the multiple husbands or wives that could potentially damage the family group as a whole but also be psychologically damaging to its younger members (children).
I think it would be a rare and special group of people that could get any form of polygamy to work in today's individualist society.
Take care,
Eyvind
| Eyvind wrote: |
| Hey Tiger,
You use the word "polygamy" but your examples are all of "polygyny". How about "polyanry"? Do you think they'd be any different or would the advantages apply to both? Eyvind |
"Polygyny" is the most common form of polygamy and has many examples in scripture.
"Polyandry" is still practiced today, specifically in parts of Tibet and Nepal. Since China and India now both have more males than females it could be an option there otherwise some men will have to remain single. Historically parts of China and India have practiced "Polyandry" too.
There is definitely a difference in the advantages/disadvantages.
As for its application in industrialised nations - people don't even get married anymore and in fact, both males and females practice "serial ploygamy" with or without the benefits of marriage in most cases. The result is a destabilisation of society thanks to a loss of family values.
I think that monogamy is a better alternative... however, the ban of polygamy and the Christian mentality of "one relationship" is responsible for many divorces, and even murders beyond that (the crazed, jealous murders... or insurance money... either one).
Polygamy would be no more damaging to children than having homosexual/lesbian parents.
Women can temper each others moods.
A woman can tell another woman when she is being a b***h easier than a man can.
Women can temper each others moods.
A woman can tell another woman when she is being a b***h easier than a man can.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| ...the Christian mentality of "one relationship" is responsible for many divorces, and even murders beyond that (the crazed, jealous murders... or insurance money... either one). |
Monogamy is not just a "Christian mentality". There are plenty of other cultures/religions that practice it.
Also, I don't think we can blame any "mentality of 'one relationship'" for divorce and other violence. I figure divorce is a result of the disposable-product, fast-food world we live in: we make decisions too hastily and are too lazy or uncaring to work through our family problems. Why bother trying to fix our relationships when we can just chuck them and get another one? I think polygamy would exacerbate this problem proportionate to the number of spouses in the family (unless it could be overcome beforehand).
Take care,
Eyvind
| jwellsy wrote: |
| Polygamy would be no more damaging to children than having homosexual/lesbian parents. |
How so? What does gender have to do with it? I'm talking about "too many cooks in the kitchen", so to speak, resulting in a buildup of negativity in the household. This has nothing to do with gender.
| jwellsy wrote: |
| Women can temper each others moods.
A woman can tell another woman when she is being a b***h easier than a man can. |
As long as we're talking stereotypes then: women also hold a grudge longer and are far more critical of other people - especially of other women!
Take care,
Eyvind
I believe polygamy doesn't work. We have an over-populated planet already, and there is no reason for people to have a lot of children anymore. The only reason it was even remotely sensible or necessary to have many wives was to have many children and to ensure the survival of some.
If a man marries many women it's usually so that he can have much sexual gratification not so that he can love them all equally for who they really are. I think it would be a suffocating environment for the woman, not being able to have an equal voice in the relationship and having to compete for attention.
The polygamists in that commune in western Canada demean woman, do not give them equal rights, marry their daughters, and don't even spend equal time with all of their wives.
I think that in most western and modern developped nations/societies polygamy is extremely inappropriate and unacceptable. No question about it.
Edit: I also believe that if a man cannot be happy with one woman, he shouldn't bother getting married.
If a man marries many women it's usually so that he can have much sexual gratification not so that he can love them all equally for who they really are. I think it would be a suffocating environment for the woman, not being able to have an equal voice in the relationship and having to compete for attention.
The polygamists in that commune in western Canada demean woman, do not give them equal rights, marry their daughters, and don't even spend equal time with all of their wives.
I think that in most western and modern developped nations/societies polygamy is extremely inappropriate and unacceptable. No question about it.
Edit: I also believe that if a man cannot be happy with one woman, he shouldn't bother getting married.
| jharsika wrote: |
| The polygamists in that commune in western Canada demean woman, do not give them equal rights, marry their daughters, and don't even spend equal time with all of their wives.
Edit: I also believe that if a man cannot be happy with one woman, he shouldn't bother getting married. |
Yup, I watched a program about them on TV and those guys don't seem to be nice people at all, very self-centred and selfish. It seems their families suffer from the lifestyle they are living, and that shouldn't happen. What a pity!
As for a man not marrying if one wife isn't good enough, that's already happening especially in the developed countries.
[Sidenote]
Women are also following this trend, and many modern women want to have a career first and a family later. It's also interesting to note that lesbianism seems to be on the rise even for so called 'heterosexual' women - especially for those who've been in bad relationships or divorce, etc.
[/Sidenote]
i don't see how you can say there's anything wrong with polygamy just because the form of it practiced by a bunch of backwards ****** as a divinely-justified patriarchy doesn't work. Obviously the problem with the treatment of women with those people lies in the religion, not the practice of polygyny.
Even in those rare cases where an actual religion isn't the justification for treating women poorly, polygamy is illegal in most western countries, so you can't look to any western group as an example of polygamy working. If they're practicing it, they're already showing little interest in the laws of their culture. If they don't care about marriage laws, why would you assume they're big on women's rights? i mean they're already brushing off one cultural standard, why not two?
Seriously, if you want a practical example of a working polygamous culture, don't go to the wacko communes or religious throwbacks. Come on. -_-
Instead, look for people who don't actually marry multiple partners, but simply co-habitate. Or maybe not even co-habitate, but share an extended, exclusive, committed relationship.
To which someone would probably answer "what about cases where one or both of the parents does not represent a good role model for the child"? Wouldn't it be better to have a number of potential role models for the child? What happens when a child doesn't feel comfortable speaking to two of their parents about something... in a monogamous relationship that kid is SOL, but in a polygamous relationship, there is still hope. More parents means more involvement in the child's life while still providing well for them. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of objections.
There are two sides to every debate, and i don't see that the other side is getting a fair shake here. People are saying negative things about polygamy that are plainly and obviously biased, and no-one's challenging them. Others are stating "facts" that sound suspiciously like opinions, but no one's calling them out to back up their claims. This is not a discussion about polygamy, this is little more than a rally denouncing it.
Here's a good example:
Firstly, that's pretty damn sexist to say a thing like that about men. Secondly, even if it is statistically true, show the statistics (or are you, once again, using the wacko communes and religious throwbacks as your only source of information). Third, the type of polygamy you're talking about is already sexist and biased against women - why can't the woman who feels "suffocated" or that she doesn't get enough attention go out and find another man? - so it's hardly a shocker that the results of it look sexist when your entire system starts from a sexist ideal (in actual fact, the experts think that if our society were to turn into a truly polygamous society today, it would benefit the women far more than the men).
Before you say something about polygamy - or any topic - first determine whether you actually have anything interesting to say. Your opinion... yeah... not really interesting. Not unless you can back it up with reasons. "i think..." or "i believe..." or anything along those lines? Yeah. Not really helping anyone. You have no right to dictate that someone else has to live a life that matches the way you believe you should live yours.
Even in those rare cases where an actual religion isn't the justification for treating women poorly, polygamy is illegal in most western countries, so you can't look to any western group as an example of polygamy working. If they're practicing it, they're already showing little interest in the laws of their culture. If they don't care about marriage laws, why would you assume they're big on women's rights? i mean they're already brushing off one cultural standard, why not two?
Seriously, if you want a practical example of a working polygamous culture, don't go to the wacko communes or religious throwbacks. Come on. -_-
Instead, look for people who don't actually marry multiple partners, but simply co-habitate. Or maybe not even co-habitate, but share an extended, exclusive, committed relationship.
| Eyvind wrote: |
| How so? What does gender have to do with it? I'm talking about "too many cooks in the kitchen", so to speak, resulting in a buildup of negativity in the household. This has nothing to do with gender. |
To which someone would probably answer "what about cases where one or both of the parents does not represent a good role model for the child"? Wouldn't it be better to have a number of potential role models for the child? What happens when a child doesn't feel comfortable speaking to two of their parents about something... in a monogamous relationship that kid is SOL, but in a polygamous relationship, there is still hope. More parents means more involvement in the child's life while still providing well for them. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of objections.
There are two sides to every debate, and i don't see that the other side is getting a fair shake here. People are saying negative things about polygamy that are plainly and obviously biased, and no-one's challenging them. Others are stating "facts" that sound suspiciously like opinions, but no one's calling them out to back up their claims. This is not a discussion about polygamy, this is little more than a rally denouncing it.
Here's a good example:
| jharsika wrote: |
| If a man marries many women it's usually so that he can have much sexual gratification not so that he can love them all equally for who they really are. I think it would be a suffocating environment for the woman, not being able to have an equal voice in the relationship and having to compete for attention. |
Firstly, that's pretty damn sexist to say a thing like that about men. Secondly, even if it is statistically true, show the statistics (or are you, once again, using the wacko communes and religious throwbacks as your only source of information). Third, the type of polygamy you're talking about is already sexist and biased against women - why can't the woman who feels "suffocated" or that she doesn't get enough attention go out and find another man? - so it's hardly a shocker that the results of it look sexist when your entire system starts from a sexist ideal (in actual fact, the experts think that if our society were to turn into a truly polygamous society today, it would benefit the women far more than the men).
Before you say something about polygamy - or any topic - first determine whether you actually have anything interesting to say. Your opinion... yeah... not really interesting. Not unless you can back it up with reasons. "i think..." or "i believe..." or anything along those lines? Yeah. Not really helping anyone. You have no right to dictate that someone else has to live a life that matches the way you believe you should live yours.
I think it all depends where it happens.. in our society it would probably end up causing discrimination, but in some cultures it is part of everyday life... and I wouldn't necessarily say it is a bad thing.
And actually, we already have it in our society in a pretty disgusting way: Think about Hugh Hefner!
And actually, we already have it in our society in a pretty disgusting way: Think about Hugh Hefner!
I like the idea of group marriages as Robert Heinlien portrayed them in a number of his novels, and I have seen a group relationship that worked and worked well (it was a woman and two men). They were together for a very long time when I met them, and showed every sign of staying together. They were very mature emotionaly, and were able to communicate openly with each other. No headgames, and no jealousy.
Among mature people, and assuming all partners have an equal say in the relationship, I see no problem at all with polygamy. And I would have to agree that a stable, multi-partner relationship would be good for any children involved for both emotional and economic reasons. Butthey key word here is stable. A constant reolving door of mommies and daddies would be pretty confusing for a child, as would mommies or daddies who were constantly competing for attention or arguing due to jealousy.
Among mature people, and assuming all partners have an equal say in the relationship, I see no problem at all with polygamy. And I would have to agree that a stable, multi-partner relationship would be good for any children involved for both emotional and economic reasons. Butthey key word here is stable. A constant reolving door of mommies and daddies would be pretty confusing for a child, as would mommies or daddies who were constantly competing for attention or arguing due to jealousy.
I am not a woman, so I find it fine. If I was though, I may have a bit of trouble with it. DOWN WITH THE FEMANAZIS!
| Indi wrote: |
| You have no right to dictate that someone else has to live a life that matches the way you believe you should live yours. |
If you are referring to me, I merely stated my opinion and spoke of what I know, I told noone to do anything...
| jharsika wrote: |
| I believe polygamy doesn't work. .....I think it would be .......I think that........I also believe that....... |
There we go...I used your "I think", and "I believe" and so on words.
| Indi wrote: |
| Wouldn't it be better to have a number of potential role models for the child? What happens when a child doesn't feel comfortable speaking to two of their parents about something... in a monogamous relationship that kid is SOL, but in a polygamous relationship, there is still hope. More parents means more involvement in the child's life while still providing well for them. |
Ideally, that would be swell. But you're assuming the other parents would want to "help out" one of their competitor's children.
For it to work everyone has to have a place in the family, they have to know their place in the family, AND they have to be content with that place in the family. I seriously doubt people living in today's modern individualist Western society could fullfil these three requirements sufficiently enough for polygamy to be thought of as - as the original poster put it - "an option."
Perhaps in collectivist societies, such as Japan, where one's "place" in a family is still much more strictly defined, polygamy might be an option. But in individualistic ones, I really don't think so.
Take care,
Eyvind
 |