"Why not polygamous marriage?"

Given that there are monogamous societies which are oppressive to women, but no polygamous societies that aren't, I think the answer is clear. Polygamy is incompatible with gender equality.
.

Yep if it is one husband and multiple wives or one wife and multiple husbands, or even one husband and one wife, traditionally marriage is oppressive to women in all its forms.
 
I'd never thought I'd see a progressive openly speak up for the marriage laws of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, but hey, I guess there's a first time to everything.
I do not mind calling bad things as they are. I have no tolerance for people who engage in scare tactics, and do so with words "obviously" or "naturally", as if anyone disagreeing with them would have to be lying or insane.
 
Not to mention the way those who DO get the many women will treat them. Your wife is getting old and you're sick of her? Divorce no longer necessary -- just get the young chick you're supporting anyway on the side into your house. She doesn't like it? Tough titties -- she can't complain about you being a polygamist, since it's now legal...

And why can't she divorce you? Or simply refuse to let you marry? If you have that much control over your wife why do you need to marry the younger woman?
 
Yep if it is one husband and multiple wives or one wife and multiple husbands, or even one husband and one wife, traditionally marriage is oppressive to women in all its forms.

How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
IT'S NOT FUNNY! :mad:
 
Given that there are monogamous societies which are oppressive to women, but no polygamous societies that aren't.
I already named one. France. A mistress is not a "wife" by name, but is one in all respects that matter -- has legal rights to alimony and child support if thrown out.

Granted France is not quite a paragon of gender equality, it is hell of a lot better than the hell WeirdScience assumes is "Natural".
I'd never thought I'd see a progressive openly speak up for the marriage laws of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, but hey, I guess there's a first time to everything.
In fact, considering that Saudi Arabia's laws really ARE better than what Weird Science assumes, he just shot his own argument.
 
Last edited:
Would any of those who speak so highly about polygamy here, would be willing to have their daughter as the third wife of a rich, elderly man -- the typical situation? What about his first wife, with the constant fear of being replaced with a younger model -- naturally without any financial or legal compensation that divorce brings?
Not that I speak highly of polygamy, but NO, I would not have a problem with one of my three grown daughters becoming wife #2, 3, or my son becoming husband #2, 3.

I WOULD help them get a strong contract, that clearly defined roles, responsiblities, and distribution of finances, both during the marriage and if it disolves.

Not to mention the way those who DO get the many women will treat them. Your wife is getting old and you're sick of her? Divorce no longer necessary -- just get the young chick you're supporting anyway on the side into your house. She doesn't like it? Tough titties -- she can't complain about you being a polygamist, since it's now legal...

First, the contract I have with my wife is that no other partners may be included without the consent of each of us, and that each of us will never grant such consent. So, no young buck or beauties for us. If either of us were discovered supporting a young buck or beauty outside of our marriage, it would pretty much end said marriage.

The only way another partner could be added to the marriage is that if the existing partners agreed, either in their initial contract, or later. Again, all responsibilities, duties, and finances would be defined, and if all three (or more) parties can't agree, the contract doesn't get signed, and the new arrangment doesn't happen.

For polygamy to be reasonably fair, it must be entered into freely by all parties. One party cannot unilatterally pull another party into a polygymous relationship.
 
Given that there are monogamous societies which are oppressive to women, but no polygamous societies that aren't, I think the answer is clear. Polygamy is incompatible with gender equality.



But they won't be treated as equal individuals. Once they become scarce (and polygamy will make them scarce), all those men who are competing for too few women WILL start to treat them as objects. The ability to look down on women will be the only status left to all the men who can't get a woman.

Although I disagree with the premise, let's say that all the wealthy old dudes start gathering up all the young, socially attractive women but that women do not start gathering up status males. This leaves women who are no longer status-young (say above 25) but are still fertile, women who are status young but not socially beautiful, women who are both but would rather not be in a polygamous relationship (legal doesn't mean required), women who are not considered "status-females" because they are wealthy in their own right, not status young, independent and every other variation.

The men who are not in a position to afford a Hugh Hefner harem will be faced with valuing women for something other than their status sexuality. (Oh the horror!) Women in the west would be able to choose from mates who were willing to take them at something other than face value.
 
Not that I speak highly of polygamy, but NO, I would not have a problem with one of my three grown daughters becoming wife #2, 3, or my son becoming husband #2, 3.

And what if there were no available women for your son? What would you do then? What would he do then?

It's not the marriage itself which is the primary source of problems.
 
Polygamy isn't "about" being in love any more than millionaires buying expensive cars is "about" mechanical engineering. It's about rich men showing off their power and status by getting stuff -- "stuff" being the operative word, women being simply a kind of property in such a relationship.
Some polygamy is about that. Just as some monagamy is about beating the crap out of one's spouse.

Other examples of each type include people who try to build a loving relationship.

Do you have anything that isn't built on straw?
 
Last edited:
You assume that polygamy will automatically result in removal of all legal rights for women. Which is a completley unsupported assumption.

Exactly. Polygamy is one thing in places where women have few rights. In any modern society where females have equal access to education, are able to pursue careers and own property, and can freely choose both if/when/who they marry and whether to divorce -- it would look nothing like Saudi Arabia.
 
Although I disagree with the premise, let's say that all the wealthy old dudes start gathering up all the young, socially attractive women but that women do not start gathering up status males. This leaves women who are no longer status-young (say above 25) but are still fertile, women who are status young but not socially beautiful, women who are both but would rather not be in a polygamous relationship (legal doesn't mean required), women who are not considered "status-females" because they are wealthy in their own right, not status young, independent and every other variation.

The variation isn't the problem. Raw numbers are. Regardless of what you think people will value, when there are men who are making multiple women unavailable, there just aren't enough women anymore. The math won't work, no matter what "variations" you try. It's like musical chairs: no matter what tune you play, there's a guaranteed loser. And he's going to cause trouble.
 
And what if there were no available women for your son? What would you do then? What would he do then?

It's not the marriage itself which is the primary source of problems.
I'm not convinced polygomy would be a huge choice. There are social climbers or gold diggers that might do it for those reasons, and if my son were one of those, he had the... um... tools... to climb, if he chose.

However, my son and his wife are basically fundementalist Christians, with polygomy a no-no, so his situation would not be changed because of polygomy. Now, the extramarital affairs he had might have had a different dynamic, not sure for better or worse, though.
 
So is sutee and female genital mutilation, or slavery for that matter. ?
straw, we're discussing polygamy here and the rights for polyamory groups to publically declare their love with a marriage ceremony, those things you mention have nothing to do with this discussion, I was simply responding to your "evil polygamy" claim,

Polygamy, like these other horrors, is one of those "traditional institutions that show the depth of their culture and tradition" which the world would do much better without, due to its inherently misogynist nature.
"their culture, their tradition", so you see this as an "us" and "them" thing. We are not talking about those religions which allow polygamy, we're talking about polygamy in the western world
heres the OP again
When hearing debates about granting marriage to same sex couples (Something I'm firmly in favour of), I often hear "If you are redefining marriage, why not have polygamous ones?" from the conservative side.
notably we're not talking about Islam here or any other group who already may allow polygamy. And if we were, I think you would be focusing on the bad examples, the good examples aren't in the public domain because no ones complaining. Exactly the same could be said for abusive partners in monogamous relationships, I bet you could find a thousand more examples of evil there
;)

Would any of those who speak so highly about polygamy here, would be willing to have their daughter as the third wife of a rich, elderly man -- the typical situation? What about his first wife, with the constant fear of being replaced with a younger model -- naturally without any financial or legal compensation that divorce brings?
that is not the typical situation, the typical situation is that more than two people fall in love and start to cohabit, then they meet a third that they both click with and invite them to live with them, this then becomes their normal and part of being normal is the right to marry
I have no vested interest in this discussion and no bias dictating my argument, I don't believe in any kind of marriage, but I feel very strongly that if three people want to dress up and be allowed to walk down an aisle and publically speak some vows then their right to do so should be enforced by law in the same way that it is for everyone else
poly groups are not second class citizens, why treat them as such
the whole reason that polygamy is illegal in the west today is because of St Augustine who said this
That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself
so the stigma is simply religious bigotry which is based on a myth that never happened. Thats a great example for the modern world isnt it
you don't think perhaps that the world has moved on in the last 1500 years since he said that ?
how people feel about gay marriage, or pet marriage or arranged marriages or marriages of convenience are irrelevant in this discussion, hows your marriage doing ?
is she happy with you ?
btw, loved your film
:D

The variation isn't the problem. Raw numbers are. Regardless of what you think people will value, when there are men who are making multiple women unavailable, there just aren't enough women anymore. The math won't work, no matter what "variations" you try. It's like musical chairs: no matter what tune you play, there's a guaranteed loser. And he's going to cause trouble.
well then, you missed the main point, that in the west poly groups are far more often female led, with multiple male partners, this in fact frees up more women for the poor insecure single men, if you allow gay marriage where one partner is pan or bisexual too, wow, think of how many women you'd have access to then, you'd need to start a poly group yourself to cope with the extra bodies, I just hope your partners don't love you enough to marry you, or your screwed arent you
:p

The variation isn't the problem. Raw numbers are. Regardless of what you think people will value, when there are men who are making multiple women unavailable, there just aren't enough women anymore. The math won't work, no matter what "variations" you try. It's like musical chairs: no matter what tune you play, there's a guaranteed loser. And he's going to cause trouble.

I think the only problem here, is that now all your other arguments have been dismissed as straw, you'd like to revert to figures as a last defence, despite not actually knowing what they are, the ratio of male to female on this planet isn't equal, it never has been, your world apparently requires one to one across the board or everything falls apart, thats quite an absurd claim as its not the world youre living in
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced polygomy would be a huge choice. There are social climbers or gold diggers that might do it for those reasons, and if my son were one of those, he had the... um... tools... to climb, if he chose.

Yes. Unless we are going to start allowing parents to force their daughters into being wife #2 or 3, I just don't see there being a lot of takers.
 
Exactly. Polygamy is one thing in places where women have few rights. In any modern society where females have equal access to education, are able to pursue careers and own property, and can freely choose both if/when/who they marry and whether to divorce -- it would look nothing like Saudi Arabia.
Exactly.

The rational extrapolation would be from American polyamory to American polygamy, not from Saudi polygamy to American polygamy.
And as noted elsewhere, American polyamory includes female led and female majority groupings, which would not be found in other cultures.

There is no evidence that Weird Science is seriously applying rational extrapolation though.
 
However, my son and his wife are basically fundementalist Christians, with polygomy a no-no, so his situation would not be changed because of polygomy.

It wouldn't be now. But that's not the premise of my question. Before your son met his wife, what would he have done if there simply were no available women for him?

What do you think other young men do when there are no available women?
 
well then, you missed the main point, that in the west poly groups are far more often female led, with multiple male partners

But I think that's precisely because polygamy isn't legally sanctioned. If that were to change, I don't think that would remain the case.
 
But I think that's precisely because polygamy isn't legally sanctioned. If that were to change, I don't think that would remain the case.
I'm not seeing the connection.

How is female led polyamory affected by laws against polygamy?
 
Last edited:
Yes. Unless we are going to start allowing parents to force their daughters into being wife #2 or 3, I just don't see there being a lot of takers.

you're ignoring human nature, my second partner isn't here just to serve me, she also serves her Miss, women are frequently less heterosexual than men and those that seek out lovers of the same sex, frequently ignore the wishes of their parents to do so
;)
 
It wouldn't be now. But that's not the premise of my question. Before your son met his wife, what would he have done if there simply were no available women for him?

What do you think other young men do when there are no available women?

I guess I don't see the issue. They are fundementalist christians, they met at church. They are a pretty exclusive group, it's a group that all agree that polygomy is a no-no, so his woman-pool would not change if polygomy existed.

If he weren't a Fundemental Christian, fending for himself, he had the looks, social skills, and social status to get (at least a chance) with the women he wanted. Heck, being married he still does.

If there were a mild shortage of women 26 years ago, *I* would probably would be single, but I had resolved to that situation when I met my wife anyhow, so... suprise!
 

Back
Top Bottom