"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[Marduk]

Being an expert on men, could you tell me how many rich, high status men would be interested in using their position to get as many women as possible? A percentage of the ones you know would be fine..

I don't know any high status males, I'm a low status male, but could you actually answer the question with an answer and not another question

Yes, only twice over. We're back to basic math again - you're not really a couple when there's three of you.

numbers aren't relevant to polyamorous groups, it gets a bit sickening to be constantly discriminated against by ignorant people just because I love two people instead of one.

 

[Strawberry]

All the arguments against are women are too weak or dumb or greedy to function in their best interest.

Not true. Its got nothing to do with being weak, dumb or greedy. Currently you are not in competition with married men for available women, if polygamy was legalised you would be. Simple as.

 

[Marduk]

Not true. Its got nothing to do with being weak, dumb or greedy. Currently you are not in competition with married men for available women, if polygamy was legalised you would be. Simple as.

you need to go back and read the rest of this thread, earlier threre were some posts against polygamy that stated a misogynist argument that all women care about is rich men and money, and used that as a main reason it wouldn't work, because all the dumb greedy women would flock to the rich powerful men

and again, this is not a sexist discussion, polygamy marriage would also allow women to have more than one husband, so it evens out

 

[Strawberry]

I don't know any high status males, I'm a low status male, but could you actually answer the question with an answer and not another question

No, because the question is based on a false premise.

numbers aren't relevant to polyamorous groups, it gets a bit sickening to be constantly discriminated against by ignorant people just because I love two people instead of one.

Nobody is discriminating against you, and nobody here deserves to be called ignorant just because they disagree with you.

Marriage is a specific contract, regulated and paid for by the rest of society around you. That is why we get the right to limit it to two people. You can love however many you want, just don't expect me to pay extra taxes to fund your tax breaks - especially as it would encourage a situation which has the potential to take society in a direction which I don't regard as very healthy.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure what "Low Status Male" has to do with the mix. A woman that would enter a multiple marriage for/because of money, which is what is being claimed, are the same women now that seek a monogomous marriage/relationship (or even quiet/side relationship) for/because of money. Either way, this woman is not going to end up with a Low or Mid Status Man. Monogomy/Pologymy, it's a wash.

First off, "status" can really mean whatever quality is desirable. Money certainly plays a role, but so can looks, or intelligence, or personality, or hierarchy within a social network, whatever. As for the women seeking high status males, well, wanting a high-status male isn't enough to get one. Competition drives many women to have to seek out lower-status men than they would want in the absence of competition. If high-status men can become attached to multiple women, then that reduces competition for men, and it will drive up the standards for men that women can impose. Someone's going to lose.

All the arguments against are women are too weak or dumb or greedy to function in their best interest. This is nonsense.

It is nonsense, but it's also not the argument being put forward. The problem isn't that women won't know their own best interest, it's that under certain conditions, local calculations of best interest don't produce global best results. This isn't a unique problem either, it happens with the classic tragedy of the commons scenario as well, or single-round prisoner's dilemma games.

 

[Strawberry]

you need to go back and read the rest of this thread, earlier threre were some posts against polygamy that stated a misogynist argument that all women care about is rich men and money, and used that as a main reason it wouldn't work, because all the dumb greedy women would flock to the rich powerful men

you are apparently supporting that opinion

No, I'm not. That's a gross over simplification of my opinion, and human psychology.

 

[crimresearch]

Not true. Its got nothing to do with being weak, dumb or greedy. Currently you are not in competition with married men for available women, if polygamy was legalised you would be. Simple as.

I know it's a long thread, but those arguments are in fact well represented, although not well supported.

As far as the math, how is 2+ a mistress, 2+ a boyfriend, 2+ swingers, 2+ divorce,
2+ 'seeing other people', 1 woman with 2 men, 2 women with 3 men, and so forth going to affect the possibilities?

Now in the case of a country like Japan, the couples math is very real, and their policy of favoring boy children has led to some very real consequences, but America just isn't that rigid when it comes to 'luv'.

 

[Marduk]

No, because the question is based on a false premise..

rubbish, I had no problem answering it when you asked me, you have something to hide ?

Nobody is discriminating against you, and nobody here deserves to be called ignorant just because they disagree with you.

So you have evidence that in my life my relationship has caused me no discrimination, or are you one of these gifted psychics that we hear about, and please mrs straw, I haven't called anyone here ignorant

Marriage is a specific contract, regulated and paid for by the rest of society around you. That is why we get the right to limit it to two people. You can love however many you want, just don't expect me to pay extra taxes to fund your tax breaks - especially as it would encourage a situation which has the potential to take society in a direction which I don't regard as very healthy.

same old crap again, I don't live in the US, so your taxes would pay for nothing, and in the UK, there are no tax breaks for marriage,

 

[Strawberry]

As far as the math, how is 2+ a mistress, 2+ a boyfriend, 2+ swingers, 2+ divorce,
2+ 'seeing other people', 1 woman with 2 men, 2 women with 3 men, and so forth going to affect the possibilities?

Nothing to be done about that, that's just consenting adults exercising freedom of choice. They're not asking society to regulate their relationships within a civil contract, and they're also not usually in a situation of any permanency.

Now in the case of a country like Japan, the couples math is very real, and their policy of favoring boy children has led to some very real consequences, but America just isn't that rigid when it comes to 'luv'.

Why, what's going on in Japan?

 

[Strawberry]

rubbish, I had no problem answering it when you asked me, you have something to hide ?

No, I have nothing to hide. Your question was based on a false premise.

So you have evidence that in my life my relationship has caused me no discrimination, or are you one of these gifted psychics that we hear about, and please mrs straw, I haven't called anyone here ignorant

Your post complaining about discrimination from ignorant people was in response to me expressing my opinion. It it wasn't directed at me, you should have made that clear in the post. And in future address me by my screen name, not mrs straw or any other silly nickname.

same old crap again, I don't live in the US, so your taxes would pay for nothing, and in the UK, there are no tax breaks for marriage,

I don't live in the US either, and I think you'll find being married in the UK has all kinds of implications for tax payers. Inheritance rights and divorce courts for a start.

 

[The Greater Fool]

First off, "status" can really mean whatever quality is desirable. Money certainly plays a role, but so can looks, or intelligence, or personality, or hierarchy within a social network, whatever. As for the women seeking high status males, well, wanting a high-status male isn't enough to get one. Competition drives many women to have to seek out lower-status men than they would want in the absence of competition. If high-status men can become attached to multiple women, then that reduces competition for men, and it will drive up the standards for men that women can impose. Someone's going to lose.

Whatever the Status elements are, the woman that would become wife #2 (or mistress # whatever) to be near it are not on my list of possible mates anyway. *My* choice pool is not affected.

Again, Polygamy wouldn't be an overwhelming choice of the rich. In our society, I don't think it would have dramatic effect on available spousal options. In the absense of a modern study, I guess you have your belief that a few rich men would get all the babes, and my belief that very little would change, that the women that would become #2+ wife are probably aready #1+ mistress and unavailable anyhow.

 

[crimresearch]

Nothing to be done about that, that's just consenting adults exercising freedom of choice. They're not asking society to regulate their relationships within a civil contract, and they're also not usually in a situation of any permanency.



Why, what's going on in Japan?

And that suggests that permanency wouldn't be a mainstay of polygamous relations in a hypothetical American future.

Japan has a 'mancession' (not my term), and younger women are filling more powerful jobs, and being more choosy about mates... instead of making a beeline for wealthy old men, they have in fact started finding young non-Japanese men attractive.

So even in a more 2 dimensional situation, there is always a good chance of some confounding factor creeping in to invalidate precistions.


It is a much more complex situation in the US or UK, and so presumably even harder to evaluate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He happens to be right. Can't you do the math yourself? The human race is roughly evenly divided into two sexes, so there simply aren't enough women to go round for every man to have multiple wives. In a society where men are allowed to have more than one, who do you think gets left single - the rich, high status males, or the poor, low status ones?

If all women have more than one husband it could work. But you get that now with the wife and mistress. Why would marriage change that?

 

[Ziggurat]

Whatever the Status elements are, the woman that would become wife #2 (or mistress # whatever) to be near it are not on my list of possible mates anyway. *My* choice pool is not affected.

That's not true. The women you are interested in might not ever want to be a #2, but they might also be interested in guys who are also interested in women who would be willing to be a #2. Or they might be interested in guys who would also be interested in women who would also be interested in guys who would also be interested in women who would be willing to be a #2. Or....

The point is, it's not that simple. But even more than that, even if in your individual case it was that simple, that doesn't fix the problem, nor does that mean the problem can't affect you in other ways. Young men who cause trouble can cause trouble for everyone.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not true. Its got nothing to do with being weak, dumb or greedy. Currently you are not in competition with married men for available women, if polygamy was legalised you would be. Simple as.

Yea because married men only have sex with their wives. The high status men this is about are the ones with multiple serial wives and mistresses anyway.

 

[The Greater Fool]

He happens to be right. Can't you do the math yourself? The human race is roughly evenly divided into two sexes, so there simply aren't enough women to go round for every man to have multiple wives. In a society where men are allowed to have more than one, who do you think gets left single - the rich, high status males, or the poor, low status ones?

You seem to think every or even most men would want multiple wives. Of the married men I know, one at a time is more than enough for them [eta: and sometimes that's too many].

If you believe every man would want 2 wives and therefore the math won't work, then we can pull the idea that every woman would want 2 husbands from the same source (our arses), and we back to balance. I mean, if we're making up things, and all.

 

[Strawberry]

Yea because married men only have sex with their wives. The high status men this is about are the ones with multiple serial wives and mistresses anyway.

I get that, but putting them back on the marriage market would only make them more attractive, and therefore increase the competition.

 

[Strawberry]

You seem to think every or even most men would want multiple wives. Of the married men I know, one at a time is more than enough for them [eta: and sometimes that's too many].

If you believe every man would want 2 wives and therefore the math won't work, then we can pull the idea that every woman would want 2 husbands from the same source (our arses), and we back to balance. I mean, if we're making up things, and all.

No, because we can actually look at societies where polygyny is allowed. There are also a few examples where polyandry is allowed, but I can't think of a society which legalises polygamy in a sexually egalitarian way. If you can, please tell us what happens there.

 

[The Greater Fool]

That's not true. The women you are interested in might not ever want to be a #2, but they might also be interested in guys who are also interested in women who would be willing to be a #2. Or they might be interested in guys who would also be interested in women who would also be interested in guys who would also be interested in women who would be willing to be a #2. Or....

The point is, it's not that simple. But even more than that, even if in your individual case it was that simple, that doesn't fix the problem, nor does that mean the problem can't affect you in other ways. Young men who cause trouble can cause trouble for everyone.

You've tried this "young horny men cause trouble" argument before and it's bunk. AGAIN, how do you know that these young horny men aren't going to buckle down and work harder to attract a woman?

Every "problem" is one you have no support for. You are simply projected possibly skewed biases on the rest of us as your support why it would be screwed up.

 

[Marduk]

I don't live in the US either, and I think you'll find being married in the UK has all kinds of implications for tax payers. Inheritance rights and divorce courts for a start.

I think you'll find it doesnt, there are no financial benefits at all. no tax breaks, Inheritence rights are given to anyone who cohabits married or not already, so thats kinda irrelevant
what financial benefit would getting divorced bring ?
and what does it cost the uk tax payer
perhaps you know as youre the one making the claim