Polygamy

[Jaden]

Here's something I've pondered for a while. I've never understood where it is fashioned that it is moral and ethical to only have one lover. I wonder why it is that when someone says they support polygamy that people from nearly all around rush to shut them up and call them low, vile names. I know the Mormons got shit for being polygamists at first, and people say that Muslims are wrong for allowing polygamy.

I cannot recall anything in the bible that would denounce polygamy in any Judeo-Christian religion. I know that in the Koran it says a man may have many wives if he loves them all equally. I know little for other religions, but in other cultures in Asia, many wives seemed to be alright and accepted. What do you think justifies or denounces polygamy? Is it a moral/ethical or religious issue? What can possibly have the power to make it illegal or legal in the first place? What do you think would motivate someone to be a polygamist?

I don't mean to just say it as a "man with many wives" or any gender specifics to apply to these questions, but the question of gender or sexism is certainly optional to take on when you look at these questions.

[LSD]

Society has absolutely no right to dictate the forms that personal relationships between consenting adults can take.

"Marriage" is an artificial construct. Monogomous or polygamous, there is no need for "legal marriage" in a free society, nor would a communist society hold such unions above any others.

Insofar as to why marriage is so promoted as "ideal", it all goes back to property and money. Monogamous marriages simplify inheritance and lineage, they keep right of property lines clear, and straight and helped to keep feudalism, and to a lesser extent capitalism, running less messily.

The "nuclear family" structure is an inherently conservative institution and more and more evidence is demonstrating that it is in no way nescessarily a desirable one.

A post-revolutionary society would radically change the way that the family operates.

As far as religion is concerned, you are correct in that the Bible and Koran look favourably at polygamy. They are, however, deeply opposed to polyandry. Again, this is to preserve inheritance and, also, to keep women subjugated.

However as communists, we obviously don't give a damn what "God" has to say on the subject. We can be quite certain that whatever the topic, "His" opinion is utter garbage

[Janus]

I know the Mormons got shit for being polygamists at first, and people say that Muslims are wrong for allowing polygamy.

True, that's one of the reasons why they banned it in the late 19th century.

It seems that there is going to be a show produced in Utah concerning this topic and it has faced major opposition and controversy.

Society has absolutely no right to dictate the forms that personal relationships between consenting adults can take.

I agree, but what would be the need for having more than one wife? Moral opposition should usually be avoided since as communists, we recognize that morals are affected by the social and economic sconstraints of the times.

[TC]

Society has absolutely no right to dictate the forms that personal relationships between consenting adults can take.

Actually i think society in general and leftists in particular have a right and an obligation to dictate that personal relationships cannot take forms that are exploitative, abusive, create and reinforce an imbalance of power or exploit one.

Poligamy as its practiced in reality is not an equal arriangement among free consenting adults, naturally as no independent self sufficent woman is likely to want to share a husband with many other women, being exclusively committed to him while giving him the oprotunity to maintain a harem.

The Mormon sects that practice poligamy often create communities that force very young teenage girls into 'marriage' arriangements with much older men who threat these girls essentially as sex slaves. These kids are indoctrinated from a young age that they have a religious obligation to participate in this system which basically amounts to sexual slavery, and if they don't want to they'll be cast out of the community to fend for themselves in a social system that gives them extremely few options if they did that. As a result of the gross gender embalance between unmarried girls and unmarried boys, they Mormon splinter group elders also expell young men from their communities.


Regardless of simple consent, this is in no way an acceptable or tolerable practice, especially when you consider that the people involved lack options and personal ability to provide for themselves given that they're young and uneducated so their survival is questionable if they refuse to participate. People who are forced by the economic realities of poverty to work in sweat shops for starvation wages are consenting adults as well, but that doesn't mean that they weren't coerced or that they aren't being exploited.

[LSD]

Obviously the exploitation of children in any form is oppressive, regardless of whether or not it's couched in "religious" terms. The indoctrination of children into servitude is criminal in and of itself. We need not ban polygamous relationships to end child abuse.

Also, remember, this discussion is not restricted to poygamy as it is classically understood. The original poster made it clear that he is refering to all polyamarous relationships, regardless of the specific number of men or women involved. Certainly you cannot be claiming that a "marriage" with three men and three women is "sexist"?

And insofar as whether any women would "want" to be in a strictly polygamous relationships... well that's really their decision to make!

Honestly, what if the women are working? What if they are not financialy dependent on the man? You yourself have pointed out that many women are fruitfully employed and that not all heterosexual relationships must be unbalanced.

Only truly distrubed groups like the delusional MIM claim that all men oppress all women. In the real world it is quite possible for an equal relationships to exist between more than two people.

Whether polygamous, polyandrous, polyamorous, or anything else, no society can tell adults whether or not they can "love" one another.

And insofar as what consitutes "marriage", I would say that nothing should constitue civil "mariage", as we have no need in modern society for that archaic anachronistic relic.

[TC]

The origional post specifically referenced Mormon and Muslim polygynous relationships though, and thats what i was responding to. I wouldn't think that a 'marriage' between three men and three women would be exploitive or sexist if they were all financially indepedent of each other, but that is hardly the typical type of poligamy practiced in real life. You don't have to reject the theoretical possibility of acceptable poligamous relationships to want to ban current popular forms of poligamy.


In any case, egalitarian sexual relationships with multiple partners are rarely poligamous because the participants don't conceptualize it as a binding marriage, rather as a polyamorous open relationship. Poligamy refers specifically to marriage situations and in reality these are almost always contructed around a single man with multiple depedent women who are essentially treated as his exclusive sexual property as the same communities oppose unmarried sexual relations (for supposedly religious reasons, either that or because the guys in charge are perverts who like things the way they are).

I certaintly don't mean to suggest that people have to be sexually exclusive if they don't want to be, and obviously not all or even most heterosexual relationships are exploitive, either with single or multiple partners, but sexual relationships that rely on power inequity in society and financial depedence between people of uneven status are exploitive.

Even if it wasn't for the social inequity and financial depedence, religious poligamy by the mere fact of having many women individually committed to one man creates an unequal relationship as he is allowed many partners and they have only one.

[which doctor]

Monogamy is monotony.

'nuff said.

[C_Rasmussen]

Quite frankly I dont think polygamy would work too well because people have a jealous possessive nature for the most part.

[chimx]

There was an interesting study done a while ago that looked at hundreds post-1960 communes and how fast they disintegrated. What is interesting, is that generally their is a correlation between monogamy and how long until the commune did breakup. Essentially, the greater the sexual network of shared partners, the quicker the communities broke up due to human jealousy issues and the like.

However, you are actually talking about polygyny (or polyandry for multiple men) which could have different effects than the non-monogamous/polygamous of the communes. The sexual networks are centered around a single individual, be it male or female.

Interestingly, often polygyny cultures are often results of patriarchal cultures often involved in war that results in a disproportionate amount of women to men. polygyny develops to make up for this disproportion and often will persist as tradition despite the leveling off of genders. However, when the disproportion decreases, the frequency of polygyny generally decreases. Examples include the Crow and Blackfeet indians of the US. I don't know enough about Arabic countries, but I wouldn't be surprised if this holds true for them as well.

and who knows about the mormons.

[Jaden]

Originally posted by chimx@Mar 23 2006, 05:42 AM
Interestingly, often polygyny cultures are often results of patriarchal cultures often involved in war that results in a disproportionate amount of women to men. polygyny develops to make up for this disproportion and often will persist as tradition despite the leveling off of genders. However, when the disproportion decreases, the frequency of polygyny generally decreases. Examples include the Crow and Blackfeet indians of the US.

Well, polygyny in The Crow, now there's something I didn't know about my tribe before.

[chimx]

Ooo, a crow! i don't suppose you're from montana? luckily my lakota friend isn't here, he would denounce you immediately. :P

I know crows are generally *not* very sexually promiscuous, but i could have sworn being told that that tribe wasn't monogamous back in the day. regardless, i'm 100% postive about the blackfeet and lots of other western tribes. edit: but now that i think about it, crows weren't traditionally western, so now i'm having second thoughts about my assertion.

[Jaden]

My mom is from Montana, and your Lakota friend cannot denounce me because I'm Oglala Sioux, too! I live in New Mexico, but we got up to the rez in Montana very often.

This is very interesting to see the different viewpoints here. For me, as I was thinking about it I thought that if in a post-revolutionary world one were to take on many partners who also had many partners it would really just make any legally binding union rather pointless but just make for a very open relationship and lots of love spread around. For me, handling one partner is well enough, I don't know how I'd deal with a network to work with! It's somewhat different from a network of friends.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chimx
There was an interesting study done a while ago that looked at hundreds post-1960 communes and how fast they disintegrated. What is interesting, is that generally there is a correlation between monogamy and how long until the commune did breakup. Essentially, the greater the sexual network of shared partners, the quicker the communities broke up due to human jealousy issues and the like.

The people who formed those communes were all raised in a climate of sexual exclusivity...and presumably attempted to overcome that by "act of will".

I had contact with one such "commune" in San Francisco where it was the "rule" that any member "had to be ready" to have sex with any other member at any time.

I surmise that this was not a very pleasant situation.

My impression is that people in our century are "drifting" away from the idea of sexual exclusivity...because it has less and less of a real function. Given the opportunity, it seems that everyone "cheats"...and the pretense of exclusivity becomes more and more pointless.

We have been taught to "expect fidelity"...but we see all around us that those who are "faithful" are also unattractive and cannot attract additional partners.

We feel "hurt" and "betrayed" when we discover our partner has been "unfaithful"...but it would be far more rational to accept reality.

Perhaps in another century or so.

[Black Dagger]

I don't like the idea of polygamy, because i don't like the idea of marriage itself. I am however currently involved in an 'open relationship', that is i can have sex with whoever i want, but there are nevertheless some guidelines that my partner and i have established.

I have one, primary partner (although this may change in the future, i don't know), this is who im referring to when i say 'my partner'. I have the closest social and sexual relations with this person, my lover and 'best friend'. Yet i can have sex with whoever i want, but must be open about all relationships, so no 'secret' sexing, honesty is paramount in strong relationships after all.

There may very well be a time in the future where i could be living with more than one sexual partner, which would make for more of a 'polygamous' setting. I like the way things are now, it's a relief to not have to hide my sexual desires/feelings, i can be open about who im attracted to and so forth.

I just wish less people were monogamous :P

[TC]

Redstar2000 writes:

My impression is that people in our century are "drifting" away from the idea of sexual exclusivity...because it has less and less of a real function. Given the opportunity, it seems that everyone "cheats"...and the pretense of exclusivity becomes more and more pointless.

We have been taught to "expect fidelity"...but we see all around us that those who are "faithful" are also unattractive and cannot attract additional partners.

We feel "hurt" and "betrayed" when we discover our partner has been "unfaithful"...but it would be far more rational to accept reality.

I think you're kindof missing the point. Sex in general really isn't about fufilling any 'utility', or 'real function' so the 'reality' of the situation is simply what everyone involves agrees to based on their personal preferences.

Personally when i'm really in love with someone i really don't want to be sexually involved with anyone else (and although clearly not everyone feels that way, i think clearly a lot of people do)...and certaintly i think if you feel that way and you find out that your partner isn't "faithful" (which is a dumb word for it i think), it really does hurt because it indicates that they don't feel the same way about you that you feel about them. Its not the sexual aspect thats upseting its the feeling of being emotionally estranged.

And when someone represents themselves to their partner as only wanting to be with them, and then cheats on them, then i think people have every reason to feel betrayed because the 'cheater' misrepresented their feelings and intentions to the 'cheated on'...the 'cheated on' might feel like they were just being used for sex or something while they were genuinely really emotionally attached to them, so they would naturally feel as if they weren't being dealt with honestly. Surely thats something that anyone can understandibly feel hurt by.


There is really nothing inherently progressive or objectionable about either being open to multiple partners or not its just a preference.

[chimx]

redstar:

My impression is that people in our century are "drifting" away from the idea of sexual exclusivity...because it has less and less of a real function. Given the opportunity, it seems that everyone "cheats"...and the pretense of exclusivity becomes more and more pointless.

We have been taught to "expect fidelity"...but we see all around us that those who are "faithful" are also unattractive and cannot attract additional partners.

i disagree. i think that the drifting away from sexual exclusivity is just being made more public in the past 50 years thanks to mass media. we like to associate the renaissance and the modern age with moral righteousness, but they slept around just like anyone else. look at Pope Alexander the VI, or Paul III. If the western worlds moral leaders were going to orgys, well.....

[321zero]

sez:

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were the days&#33

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)And when someone represents themselves to their partner as only wanting to be with them...[/b]

They're lying. They might "mean it" at the moment they "speak the words" but if the opportunity arose to connect with another attractive person, they'd almost certainly grab it.

We have been "trained" to both expect and deliver such promises...even though experience should teach us that they are, by and large, "unkeepable".

What we need to do here is change our "expectations" so that they are "in line" with how people actually behave.

chimx

I disagree. I think that the drifting away from sexual exclusivity is just being made more public in the past 50 years thanks to mass media. We like to associate the renaissance and the modern age with moral righteousness, but they slept around just like anyone else. Look at Pope Alexander VI, or Paul III. If the western world's moral leaders were going to orgies, well.....

There's a sense in which you're quite right. Not counting the wretched serfs, the "high" Middle Ages and the Renaissance were a good deal more ribald than people now think. What we think of as extreme "sexual puritanism" is really an invention of the rising bourgeoisie (by way of the Protestant Reformation).

What has changed over the last century is the "cosmic condemnation"...it's just "withering away". People may still dismiss others as "sluts" or "womanizers"...but it's increasingly, I think, a pro forma criticism.

A faintly musty attitude that's "left over" from the past.

Would you honestly "lose any sleep" over the fact that someone you knew referred to you as a "slut" or a "womanizer"? Or would you just shrug and move on?

There are things that people can call us that are really insulting..."fighting words" in legal terms. Last year, I was going to ban a member of this board who accused me of plagiarism...but he retracted his charge and apologized, so I let it drop.

But I was really pissed off! :angry:

When I was younger and active in "the mating game", I was characterized on a few occasions (by some rather old-fashioned folks) as a "womanizer"...and all I can recall is laughing at the whole idea.

It sounded so quaint and Victorian.

[TC]

They're lying. They might "mean it" at the moment they "speak the words" but if the opportunity arose to connect with another attractive person, they'd almost certainly grab it...
...What we need to do here is change our "expectations" so that they are "in line" with how people actually behave.

I realize you're claiming that but its just not empirically true. Most surveys concerning it suggest about 50% of married people have affairs...but the other 50% doesn't...so its really just as likely to be 'in line' with how people 'actually behave' as it is not to be. Plenty of people pass up the type of opprotunities you're describing out of preference for their partner rather than only restraining themselves out of guilt over a percieved betrayal anyways.

I think theres some sort of sense that monogamy is conservative and socially regressive here or something but really its just a particular sexual preference it doesn't have any inherent moral or political component either positive or negative...simply because some conservatives have treated it as if it does.

When I was younger and active in "the mating game", I was characterized on a few occasions (by some rather old-fashioned folks) as a "womanizer"...and all I can recall is laughing at the whole idea.

makes sense

lol and would these be old-fashioned folks who you didn't mind their quaint Victorianisms while you were sleeping with them...or just their old-fashioned friends/parents/boyfriends/husbands/children etc.


But seriously you can't just universialize your own experiance and preference as if it applied to everyone. Thats as dumb as rightwingers universializing their preference for the opposite and condemning promiscuity.

[apathy maybe]

Personally I can see nothing wrong with men and women and anybody else having as many partners as they want.

I feel restricted by my girlfriend wanting me to her self (though that is not a good way of putting it). I told her my feelings about the matter (which include the fact that I think that she can have multiple partners too) and she disagrees. Thus we agreee to disagree and for the sake of the relationship, I try not to find someone else.

I just can't see what is wrong with people doing things that don't hurt others.

(Will try and have a better more theoretical reply next time I'm around.)