• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So, Polygamy (Again)

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,055
Location
Yokohama, Japan
I know this has been brought up before and I probably started a thread myself, but it seems like it's been a while, so here goes:

Just came across this:
How The TLC Show "Sister Wives" Makes Polygamy Seem Appealing

Haven't seen the show myself, but it sounds interesting.

A couple issues. First the legal aspect:
News broke this week that police in Lehi, Utah, are looking into prosecuting the Brown family, stars of TLC's new reality show Sister Wives, for being bigamists. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah code "defines bigamy through cohabitation, not just through legal marriage contracts." As Sister Wives portrays the happily polygamist relationship of the aggressively cheerful Kody Brown and his wives Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn, it's not surprising that local cops don't appreciate the show—it not only celebrates an illegal relationship taking place in their town; it's also been receiving positive publicity from national publications.
Click to expand...

So, they cohabitate, but don't have legal marriage contracts. They say they are happy and they aren't hurting anyone else. Why should the police bust this up? It's true that it is their job to enforce the law, but maybe the law needs to be changed. Or sometimes laws stay on the books, but the police and prosecutors just stop enforcing them.

The second issue is, is it really right? Is it really workable?

And the program does show this polygamist family in a pretty glowing—and mesmerizing—way. Sister Wives is edited to make a four-wife household seem not only normal and relatable, but the wives also use the language of choice to make clear that their lifestyle is a conscious, wise decision—they're not being coerced into sharing one man.
. . .
But back to actual life, in which I am a critically thinking person who realizes that reality shows are not real and that sharing one's husband is not tenable or desirable. (Watch the sister wives describe how they negotiate sex in the below clip.) It's worth noting that two out of the three wives featured in the first episode (Kody Brown tells his family he is bringing on the fourth wife at the end of that episode) were raised by polygamists. The editors go out of their way to show that the decision to be in this union was a conscious, thought-out, even empowered choice by all the wives—they were not forced into it. However, one has to wonder how much of a "choice" it was for the women raised in polyg families, who have never known any other sort of relationship.
Click to expand...

There's that magic word there: "empowered." :D
Reminds me of a funny article from the Onion a few years back:
Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does ;)
 
One could equally wonder how much of a choice it is for women raised in monogamous families, who have never known any other sort of relationship.
 
Raise the Red Lantern

Criticisms of polygamy primarily focus on the women involved, as if they're somehow devalued because the man has multiple wives, hence the need to use the language of "empowerment" pre-empt criticism.

In his incredible book The Moral Animal, Robert Wright showed me how polygamy probably, on the whole, is more harmful to men. (I'm talking about an above ground, legalized polygamy, not hell-hole Mormon fundamentalist compounds where 11 year-olds are traded like cigarettes.)

Women tend to want a man with status & money. Men are primarily, typically, attracted to beauty (a signal of fertility). If we allowed polygamy, which is really a free-market in marriage, then what would happen. Wright makes simplifying assumptions: say there are 100 women and 100 men in a society, and we could rank them in order of desirability. In a monogamous society, the most desirable man would pair off with the most desirable woman -- Brad and Angelina, or whatever. So #1 is with #1, #23 with #23 and so on. In a polygamous society, however, maybe man #3 marries women #s7, 25, 44, 86, 99. Women agree to this situation because they would rather be third, fourth or fifth wife of one of the most desirable and accomplished men in their society. Man #44 is not nearly as charming, has a mid-level white collar job, and would not be able to provide as well for his children (plus he doesn't bring the same quality genes). As inequalities widen among men -- investment bankers who are drug cartel rich vs. minimum wage register monkeys -- you can bet polygamy will be on the rise. Non-polygamous women benefit by virtue of lopsided ratios: there are many available men for each available woman. This leaves men at the bottom without wife, and probably alienated from mainstream civil society (you can bet sales of Halo will be on the rise).

So on a micro-scale polygamy's probably fine; these are consensual relations between adults. But the overall collective effects could be harmful. Given that, we should probably side with the liberty enhancing option and then see what happens.

Monogamy is a kind of social welfare for men, so it's odd many conservatives are dead set against it.
 
That's an interesting theory on paper.

But I'd like to see it in practice.

Monogamy is so deeply ingrained in our culture I think that most women will still prefer it to being a rich dude's third wife.

In America today more women are graduating from college than men and the wage gap is shrinking. Among young women they are even surpassing males as wage earners in some cases. You would think that this would make women change their preferred mate somewhat, from rich guy to good husband and father guy.
 
So .. there's a tv show that shows a group of people, doing nothing illegal (by most definitions of that particular law), and are harming no one. They are being criticised (and possibly arrested) not for the fact that this could by some interpretation of the law be considered a polygamous family, but more for the fact that they are daring to present their own personal and most intimate details in a positive light?
 
I suspect the main reason a state is opposed to polygamy is that it just makes the paperwork about inheritance so much more complicated.

Personally I don't see the problem, provided it is voluntuary and legal both ways (ie a woman could also marry several men)
 
The reason Utah is so anti-polygamy is largely the result of its former prominence there. LDS ditched polygamy so Utah would be accepted as a state, and has been trying to quash the polygamists ever since.

One factor is that it's not uncommon for the more cultish polygamist groups (like FLDS) to engage in welfare fraud. Since the man will have one "legal" marriage, and the others will be "spiritual," the other wives file for public assistance as single mothers.
 
Oh man!

Polygamists have got to be crazy. I can't stand the nagging of one missus. Imagine what surround sound nagging would be like. 5.1 or even 7.1, not for me.
 
[pedant]
Can I just point out that the perfectly cromulent words 'polygyny' and 'polyandry' rarely get much work, and since this thread seems to be mostly about polygyny it would be nice to use the correct word once in a while.

*pushes glasses back up nose*
[/pedant]
 
I'm not against plural marriage in theory. Presumably, if all parties are adult and go into the arrangement with open eyes...Why not?
However, there are serious legal challenges. Property rights, child-custody rights, etc.
These are highly contentious in current marriages; they might become impossibly so in legal plural marriages unless Draconian pre-nups were signed by all...

I recall Robert Heinlein speculating about the idea of "contractural" marriages; where individuals could literally buy into a family after signing appropriate contracts and being approved by existing members.
Workable?
I'm inclined to doubt it.
As noted above, we are deeply acculturated towards pair-bonding situations. Most "open" marriages seem not to last very long. One or the other partner gets jealous or starts to feel neglected.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
[pedant]
Can I just point out that the perfectly cromulent words 'polygyny' and 'polyandry' rarely get much work, and since this thread seems to be mostly about polygyny it would be nice to use the correct word once in a while.

*pushes glasses back up nose*
[/pedant]
Click to expand...

OK, I added them as tags. :)
 
I remember being dragged to a Mormon-based tour in Salt Lake City. "Plural Marriage" was the term they used. Made me chuckle. Then I got outed as an Athiest by a Mormon buddy of mine right in the middle of a crowd of Mormons.

I barely got away alive.
 
Puppycow said:
That's an interesting theory on paper.

But I'd like to see it in practice.
Click to expand...
You ARE seeing it in practice. This particular social experiment has been going on for last 40 years, as in most of Western world marriage became less of a necessity, and people are (theoretically) free to sleep with whoever they want and as many as they want.

And guess what -- what Cain describes is not happening. Or mostly not happening. Extremely successful men who openly bed multiple women exist, but they are very few. Apparently number of women who settle for this really is very small. (Secret polygyny, a.k.a. "cheating" is much more widespread.)

Cain's scenario -- 100 men, 100 women, women latch onto more successful men leaving bottom 25 or so men without a wife, -- has been a norm in many societies throughout history, but it takes more than just acceptance of polygyny for that to happen. It also requires women desperate for marriage. Through most of history it was literally a life-and-death necessity for a woman to "get a man of her own". Nowadays, much less so. So women who failed to get a very desirable man all too often choose not to marry at all (and not to cohabit either), than to settle for some unemplyed doormat or abusive drunk. Bottom quarter (or some portion, I think it's more like 5%) of men still end up without a mate, but not because all women are taken -- instead because some women prefer being single to these men.

Monogamy and economic necessity for women to marry and social opprobrium (or downright illegality) of cohabitation, combined to create "social welfare for men". Short, dumpy men with body odor and little money did not have good in the days of polygyny, and do not have it good post-sexual revolution.
 
Based on the reading of the law they gave on the news, this would not be illegal if he wasn't legally married to any of the wives. They should have gotten a divorce before the show started. It would have been well worth the hassle.
 
You know, in a few other states, the term "sister wife" has an entirely different meaning. When I saw this show being advertised (I admit I wasn't paying very close attention, other than noticing the title) I seriously thought that that what it was about. :boxedin:
 
It's a very precarious situation, I would think, being married to more than one person. What happens if you show more attention or affection to one husband/wife. What happens when one person gets jealous or wants to leave the marriage? Anybody who can successfully navigate this sort of relationship has to be pretty adept at making sure everyone feels respected and cared for. I'm not sure I have that much energy but I suppose the "sister-wives" spend a lot of time together and give each other the emotional support they need. I'm not exactly sure it's necessarily a good deal for any of the parties unless they are totally committed to the arrangement.

I wonder if it's sort of like hiring a new person when the guy goes out and finds a new wife: "Well, I've decided to bring Suzie aboard. She'll be a fine asset and help the company expand it's available services. Let's make sure we treat her like one of the family." Do the other sister-wives get a say? Do they get to interview her to make sure she'll fit? Or is it entirely up to the man? As I understand it, the man gets the final say in Mormon plural marriages and the women just have to live with those decisions (though I'm sure the man has to do some dealing to smooth things over - they are still human, after all). Of course, we rail against Middle Eastern cultures that violate womens' rights in this manner but one could make the argument that they are doing this of their own free will (though that is a big assumption) so it's a different situation.

Ultimately, opposing polygamy or polyandry is a lot like opposing gay marriage: it's ideological, not rational. It's not going to harm anyone (again, assuming total commitment by all parties of their own volition) but it offends some people and their values (where in the Constitution is the right not to be offended?). Not many people are going to engage in the practice anyhow. It's not something I would do (though a little extra sex might be nice, it's not worth the extra headaches) but I can't see why others should be prevented from doing it.
 
Polyandry raises serious legal problems: in case of a partial divorice, who is father of the kids? Women KNOW who their children are (barring odd circumstances). Men can never be sure.

In principle, I don't really care if it's consensual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom