Polygamy?

[Comrade Jacob]

go

EDIT: To make it clear I do not mean sex-partners but marriage/life-partners.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I don't see what's wrong with it.

[Hrafn]

I voted no, because to me, (serial, of course) monogamy feels simply far better. But for everyone else... Whatever floats their boat.

[Goblin]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If someone wants to marry several partners, and the people they marry are ok with sharing a partner with other people, they should be allowed to do so.

[Quail]

By polygamy do you mean open relationships and/or relationships with more than two partners, as opposed to marriage between more than two partners? I'm okay with non-monogamy, in any case.

[Devrim]

Polygamy is the practice of having multiple wives. The practice of having more than one husband is called polyandry. I used to know a woman in Ankara, who was from Siberia, and whose mother had two husbands, and of course she didn't know which one was her father. It of ours in parts of Siberia, Mongolia and Nepal, I believe, in many cases it is common hat the husbands are both brothers.

Devrim

[Tim Cornelis]

Polygamy is the practice of having multiple wives. The practice of having more than one husband is called polyandry.

Polygamy when there are more than two spouses, polyandry is more than one husband, polygyny is more than one wife.

[Devrim]

Polygamy when there are more than two spouses, polyandry is more than one husband, polygyny is more than one wife.

Thanks, I have just checked this and you are right. I never knew that before. It is always good to learn new words.

Devrim

[Zealot]

I don't care but it works both ways. If polygamy is legalised then polyandry should be too. In my personal opinion, monogamy is more than enough especially under capitalism when maintaining commitments to more than one wife/husband and family would be almost impossible for most working class people. On the other hand, it would be a progressive move to shift the status of a "mistress" to a wife so that she could enjoy the full benefits that come with marriage (inheritance, etc.).

[Slavic]

I'm fine if others want to engage in a polygamous relationship, but just my wife on her own is plenty, I'd lose my hair if I had two.

[sixdollarchampagne]

There was a movie on TV decades ago, about a fundamentalist, Mormon-like group in the US West that practiced polygamy, and, in that movie, the case was made that, as the original wives grew older, they were displaced in the husband's affection by younger wives, which suggests that polygamy might be a monument to the immaturity of some men. It certainly seems like a raw deal for women. It would be interesting to know just why polygamy got banned in the US.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

There was a movie on TV decades ago, about a fundamentalist, Mormon-like group in the US West that practiced polygamy, and, in that movie, the case was made that. as the original wives grew older, they were displaced in the husband's affection by younger wives, which suggests that polygamy might be a monument to the immaturity of some men. In any case, it seems like a raw deal for women. It would be interesting to know just why polygamy got banned in the US.

I think that's more to do with traditional fucked up mormon polygyny basically translating into being sex-slaves to a husband, rather than anything bad about relationships between multiple partners.

And polygamy was banned in the US because it was (and still is to an extent) an extremely fundamentalist protestant country.

[Landsharks eat metal]

I don't see the problem as long as everyone involved is aware of the arrangement and has freely agreed to it without any form of coercion.

[stefanbl]

Within a Patriarchal Society it will primarily benefit men at the expense of women.

But then so will literally anything, so w/e.

[Invader Zim]

I don't have a problem with it in principle, live and let live. However, given that I've struggled to make a relationships with one person at a time work out well of late, I can only imagine how hopeless I'd be with multiple partners.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think, like many others have expressed, there is nothing wrong in principle with polygamy, and indeed polyamory is perhaps something liberating that we should aim towards.

But tbh, my relationships tend to be so fucked up, i'd better stick to just one for now! :lol:

[BIXX]

I think that being poly is awesome. However, I know little to nothing about whether I would be able to retain a poly relationship.

[Sabot Cat]

I believe that the prohibition on plural marriage should be lifted, because the state has no role in dictating personal relations; the same is true of same-sex marriage.

[Bostana]

yes but polyandry has to be allowed as well. You should also have to get the ok from the other partner(s)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I believe that the prohibition on plural marriage should be lifted, because the state has no role in dictating personal relations; the same is true of same-sex marriage.

What about non-consentual relations?

I agree with you entirely by sentiment but I have actually seen these lines used by rapists in The Rapist Files, and pedophile-apologists on this very site (don't know if they are banned or not but there were a surprising number of NAMBLA lovers), as an excuse for sexual assault. I.e. the state cannot intervene with someone sexually abusing a ten year old because it's "none of the states' business". Sounds like those European catholic priests that the Pope was letting slide. Urgh.

[Sabot Cat]

What about non-consentual relations?

By non-consensual relations, do you mean rape? In which case, that's already prohibited, and I said nothing of overturning it.


I agree with you entirely by sentiment but I have actually seen these lines used by rapists in The Rapist Files, and pedophile-apologists on this very site (don't know if they are banned or not but there were a surprising number of NAMBLA lovers), as an excuse for sexual assault. I.e. the state cannot intervene with someone sexually abusing a ten year old because it's "none of the states' business". Sounds like those European catholic priests that the Pope was letting slide. Urgh.

I suppose that was badly phrased. The state should legislate on these matters, because they are public in that they involve individuals who wouldn't be related to one another if not for the actions of a victimizer. Such is the case for murderers and their victims. What I'm saying is that state shouldn't legislate on matters which involve individuals who relate to one another in a consensual and voluntary basis as in plural or same-sex marriage, religious organizations, clubs, labor unions, etc. (Businesses should be legislated upon however, because they are not truly voluntary; they coerce people to be involved through dependence on wages for the ability to live; hate groups should also be subject to the law, because they are victimizers.)

[o well this is ok I guess]

I believe that the prohibition on plural marriage should be lifted, because the state has no role in dictating personal relations; the same is true of same-sex marriage. there's not really a need for this sort of formal reason, is there? It ought not be legislated on because, as far as we're concerned, there's nothing wrong with it. Even if the state did have a right to meddle in personal relationships, we might still say that it nonetheless ought not legislate on such.

[Sabot Cat]

there's not really a need for this sort of formal reason, is there? It ought not be legislated on because, as far as we're concerned, there's nothing wrong with it. Even if the state did have a right to meddle in personal relationships, we might still say that it nonetheless ought not legislate on such.

I'm not arguing from formal principles like "the state must not do x, because they don't have the right to do so according to maxim y", but that in general, it's not beneficial for most when the state legislates in these matters. My view is principally inspired by the essay On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, who argues this on the basis of utility (benefit for the most people), which is the foundation of my argument as well.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

In theory, why not.

Under certain circumstances like in those perverse and horrific mormon/jehovah witness/idk cults that like marry off like 14 yr old girls to creepy old men and shit like that, fuck no. But if it was like a more appropriate set up with consenting adults and so on, sure.

[liberlict]

I think most couples are functionally polygamous already, it's just the word that scares them. There's nothing wrong with it. As far as legal recognition of those kind or arrangements, well, that's complicated. I couldn't care less though.