Polygamy

[dowie]

Well mainly I'm thinking of myself and 99% of the population when I say it might not be the best idea.

Well probably neither is a homosexual relationship a good idea if you're heterosexual... The fact it might not work for you isn't really relevant.

Some people, fine, it might work well but I just can't see it on a larger scale. Doesn't it just allow a guy to have many sexual partners while maintaining relationships with all of them? It's not really cheating assuming everyone involved is aware, but I just can't see it.

Doesn't matter if you can see it or not, there are various people in these relationships already and it works for them, there are various combinations and ground rules.

 

[FoxEye]

How are guys like me supposed to pick up chicks if the alpha males are hoarding them all?

For that reason, I think it should be illegal

 

[krooton]

I guess what it does do, provided everyone involved is ok with it, is allows you to meet all your needs from a relationship. Rather than having to hope to meet a person who ticks most of your boxes, and knowing that you both would need to make some compromises beyond that, you could have multiple partners who meet multiple needs.

Say you have someone who you get on amazingly well from a social aspect, have the same sense of humour, like the same sorts of recreations, but are a completely mismatched sexually, you could have another partner who you are electric with in the bedroom, but don't really connect much beyond that.

Almost impossible for us to comprehend as we have had been indoctrinated with Disneyfied views on relationships, but for some people that could actually work.

 

[RogerMesenseless]

Well probably neither is a homosexual relationship a good idea if you're heterosexual... The fact it might not work for you isn't really relevant.

Doesn't matter if you can see it or not, there are various people in these relationships already and it works for them, there are various combinations and ground rules.

Well it appears we have differing opinions on the matter. (OP wanted opinions so there's plenty of them in here).

 

[AGD]

I don't think it would work for me, but if others like it, why not? Everyone involved is a consenting adult so I don't see a problem.

 

[dowie]

Well it appears we have differing opinions on the matter. (OP wanted opinions so there's plenty of them in here).

True though there is a difference between opinions on whether it would work for you, whether you like it , see it as feasible etc.. and opinions on whether it should be allowed. The former opinions shouldn't prevent a positive opinion for allowing it necessarily. If we look at the facts it does work for people and monogamous relationships certainly don't work out for some people too...

In my opinion its not for me either and I don't see how it does work but I will accept that it does work for others therefore I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed nor have I seen any reasonable objections to it so far.

 

[Squark]

You can't be fully committed, devoted to, intimate with and completely love more than one person.

 

[dowie]

You can't be fully committed, devoted to and intimate with more than one person.

Why can't you?

 

[asim18]

It makes your relationship less unique.

Surely a polygamous one would be instantly more unique?

 

[RDM]

Polyamourous relationships are possible and not at all illegal but polygamy is possibly more difficult due to next of kin and inheritance laws. I am pretty sure the only places which allow polygamy it is where women's rights are already restricted and only men can marry more than one person.

 

[Angilion]

That depends on whether any women actually would want that state of affairs. If you simply say that women can have it too but none actually are fond of the idea perhaps it is about a male sex fantasy.

Perhaps the answer isn't the same for everyone or for everyone who happens to be of the same sex. Describing the entire idea of polyamory as a "male sex fantasy" would be extremely unrealistic and silly.

There are some women who want and currently have a polyandrous relationship. No doubt there are some who don't currently but who would like to if the right circumstances arose. And some who wouldn't.

There are some women who have sexual fantasies about themself, a man and another woman. And some who don't.

There are some women who are bisexual. And some who aren't. Some of those who are would also be in either or both of the above groups. And some wouldn't be.

There are some men who have or want a polyandrous relationship. Obviously, that means that there are no women involved. So why would those polygamous relationships be about women or about balance of power between a man and a woman?

I don't personally know any women who've told me that they have or want a polygynous relationship, but I'd be amazed if there weren't any. While such a thing certainly is a sex fantasy for some men, that wouldn't have anything to do with the relationships themselves. Nor would they be balance of power between a man and a woman.


Not everything is always about women. Women aren't all the same. Men aren't all the same. Not all relationships are solely about men's sexual fantasies. Reality is more complex and more varied than all that because the base unit of interpersonal relationships is a person, not a stereotype nor even an average.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

My parents years ago knew a "ménage à trois" - a household of 2 men and 1 woman. They were consenting and I don't have a problem with that.

The only issue I would have, albeit far-fetched is if an entire population practised polygamy (several wives) or polyandry (several husbands), leaving a gender shortage enough to jeopardise the human race. Similarly, if 90% of the male population were to become gay, leaving a shortage of men. Hypothetical of course!

Another example, and this is very real life - Staffordshire University! When I was there, I was in a lecture theatre of 100 people, of which only about 3 were girls. Or you go to the student union nightclub and there were like 20 guys dancing around 1 girl. That was 3 years of being in the friend zone lol.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

I think monogamy arose out of the human emotion of jelousy.

Imagine if you didn't get jealous, you lived with like 3-4 woman and like maybe your best buddy and you just had awesome orgies.

It'd probably be kick ass.

You can't be fully committed, devoted to, intimate with and completely love more than one person.

Wrong.

That's nothing more than the social narrative talking.

 

[Angilion]

I don't think it would work for me, but if others like it, why not? Everyone involved is a consenting adult so I don't see a problem.

Legal rights and responsibilities become more complicated, which is very relevant to polygamous relationships with state recognition and state-ordered rights and responsibilities. Since the state does that for monogamous relationships, it's clearly relevant to polygamous relationships.

It's not an insurmountable problem and it's a matter of practicality rather than morality, but it is a problem.

 

[Tefal]

Why is this frowned upon?

Saying it is illegal and morally wrong isn't a valid argument since it could be argued that our views on right and wrong are also (but not limited to) based on what is legal or not. Homosexuality is illegal in some countries but many would blame the law, not the moral position, as being wrong.

Personally, while I'm supposed to accept polygyny as a Muslim (you know who the father is...but with DNA testing maybe this Islamic legal aspect could be reformed...), but using the argument that as long as it doesn't hurt others what people do is their matter then there doesn't seem to be a problem with polygamy.

So, should society be more receptive to polygamous relationships? Do people here think it's wrong?

Tax

it's very complicated and very rare to work though and usualy wil lend badly which isnt the ebst for children, but then given most relationshiups/marriages fail these days thats not the best argument

 

[dowie]

Legal rights and responsibilities become more complicated, which is very relevant to polygamous relationships with state recognition and state-ordered rights and responsibilities. Since the state does that for monogamous relationships, it's clearly relevant to polygamous relationships.

It's not an insurmountable problem and it's a matter of practicality rather than morality, but it is a problem.

True it is a potential additional hurdle though I'm sure say contract law can get even more complicated in many business areas for example. A requirement for a pre-nup agreement outlining how people may separate and/or possibly join the marriage could be useful and a lot of these sorts of relationships aren't exactly standardised and so many different combinations exist.

I guess in some ways, although an official multiple marriage with the additional tax implications etc.. can't be performed at the moment there is nothing stopping a group of people from having some form of symbolic marriage ceremony and also entering into some form of legal contract between themselves re: joint assets etc..

 

[Ryan-3]

Fine with me and my wife doesn't mind either. Nor does my wife. Or my wife.

 

[Raz]

Polyamourous relationships are possible and not at all illegal but polygamy is possibly more difficult due to next of kin and inheritance laws. I am pretty sure the only places which allow polygamy it is where women's rights are already restricted and only men can marry more than one person.

This is a good summary of the legal position of polygyny in some countries http://aannaim.law.emory.edu/ifl/index2.html

 

[RDM]

This is a good summary of the legal position of polygyny in some countries http://aannaim.law.emory.edu/ifl/index2.html

It may well be, but it is also a complete pain to navigate!

Though a brief look seems to suggest that my summary wasn't too out of place, Islam only allows polygyny and comes along with it reduced rights for women (like all of the Abrahamic religions there is a solid core of misogyny).

The following wiki link is somewhat easier to navigate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

I think this quote is most telling:

Polygyny, the practice of one husband taking multiple wives, has been described as a form of human rights abuse. Many international human rights organisations, as well as women's rights groups in many countries, have called for its abolition.[1][2] In 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Committee considered polygamy (probably limited to polygyny) a violation of the internationally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the grounds that it violates the dignity of women, and recommended it be made illegal in all states.

 

[Raz]

It may well be, but it is also a complete pain to navigate!

definitely agree with you on that.

Though a brief look seems to suggest that my summary wasn't too out of place, Islam only allows polygyny and comes along with it reduced rights for women (like all of the Abrahamic religions there is a solid core of misogyny).

The following wiki link is somewhat easier to navigate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

I think this quote is most telling:

Not sure I agree with that. There is no tangible reason why marriage needs to be between two people only, and I'm not sure how it violates the dignity of women. I would argue that pornography does that, or even modelling, yet many people would say the opposite.

In relation to Islam, I think societies are less accepting of polygyny than they were previously, but it obviously does happen and where everyone involved is 'happy' and it works then there isn't much to say against it.

Any way, another quote from the Wiki article

In an October 2004 op-ed for USA Today, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley "argued that, as a simple matter of equal treatment under law, polygamy ought to be legal. Acknowledging that underage girls are sometimes coerced into polygamous marriages, Turley replied that banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse."