Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're talking about 1 man with several wives with several children from each wife, that's a recipe for a welfare society from a financial standpoint.
Hey, I wouldn't mind having 4 wives sometimes. When one needs a break, jump to the next one, then the next two at the same time.
Then using my big head to think, reality sets in... first of all 4 women together in the same house. And with all the kids running around from different women and the same man. From a societal & evolutionary standpoint, that's just asking to start a war.
If you're asking me that question, you obviously aren't versed enough on this subject to properly debate it.
Polyandry is marriage of one wife, and multiple husbands.
No, its more common in some Muslim cultures. However, most Muslims still elect not to have multiple wives, even though its perfectly legal in some Muslim countries.
Its not for everyone, not everyone can afford it, or accept the responsibility to go along with it.
Even Muslim countries tend to impose significant limits on polygamy, for the very reasons that I stated. Still, the fact that ages of consent for women in those countries are often in the single digits just proves my point.
You suggest that most men will not want to be polygamous given the opportunity. What are you basing that on? The idea that polygamy entails to great a responsibility? Hahahahaha! As if people don't have a general tendency to act irresponsibly, especially in the area of relationships. Or because most grown women will not willingly consent to it? That may work at first, but once a significant minority of women do consent, and the resultant shortage of wife material kicks in, this will create ideal conditions for forcing women at younger ages into marriage, by curbing civil rights, educational and employment opportunities, lowering the age of consent and finally transferring the power of consent to someone else.
One of the solutions for keeping the incidence of polygamy low that I've seen proposed here would involve limiting it to the very wealthy. Think about the social implications of that. Certainly the wealthy have a lot more to play with just because they are wealthy, but are you sure you want to create a society where basic legal rights are contingent upon wealth? I find that idea highly inconsistent with our egalitarian principles.
Besides, this kind of a qualification defeats the entire argument for polygamy. What's the point of legalizing it if you then impose laws limiting it to a tiny percentage of the population? If you claim that polygamy should be codified because some people want to be polygamous -- than how does making polygamy a benefit for the rich help poor people who want to be polygamists? Or middle-class people who want to practice polygamy? Arguing that polygamy should be legally recognized, but then adding the qualification that it should only be available to a handful of people, pretty much renders the argument null. Sort of like that other argument that keeps appearing here, about the legalization of drugs -- starting off with the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want and drugs should be legal, then adding the restrictions that would make drugs unobtainable for the vast majority of people who want them.
Even Muslim countries tend to impose significant limits on polygamy, for the very reasons that I stated. Still, the fact that ages of consent for women in those countries are often in the single digits just proves my point.
You suggest that most men will not want to be polygamous given the opportunity. What are you basing that on? The idea that polygamy entails to great a responsibility? Hahahahaha! As if people don't have a general tendency to act irresponsibly, especially in the area of relationships. Or because most grown women will not willingly consent to it? That may work at first, but once a significant minority of women do consent, and the resultant shortage of wife material kicks in, this will create ideal conditions for forcing women at younger ages into marriage, by curbing civil rights, educational and employment opportunities, lowering the age of consent and finally transferring the power of consent to someone else.
One of the solutions for keeping the incidence of polygamy low that I've seen proposed here would involve limiting it to the very wealthy. Think about the social implications of that. Certainly the wealthy have a lot more to play with just because they are wealthy, but are you sure you want to create a society where basic legal rights are contingent upon wealth? I find that idea highly inconsistent with our egalitarian principles.
Besides, this kind of a qualification defeats the entire argument for polygamy. What's the point of legalizing it if you then impose laws limiting it to a tiny percentage of the population? If you claim that polygamy should be codified because some people want to be polygamous -- than how does making polygamy a benefit for the rich help poor people who want to be polygamists? Or middle-class people who want to practice polygamy? Arguing that polygamy should be legally recognized, but then adding the qualification that it should only be available to a handful of people, pretty much renders the argument null. Sort of like that other argument that keeps appearing here, about the legalization of drugs -- starting off with the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want and drugs should be legal, then adding the restrictions that would make drugs unobtainable for the vast majority of people who want them.
They may have restrictions, yes, but its still legal isn't it?
And I said most men wouldn't do it, if they had to accept the responsibility that comes along with it. In our country, many of the same ones marrying 14 year old girls, are getting government assistance for their multitude of children. Wouldn't be so, if they had to take care of all of them themselves.
I don't want polygamy, or any type of marriage limited to any one group. However, I want everyone who accepts that life role, to deal with the consequences.
Aside from the fact that a lot of arguments on this thread simply make zero sense--especially a lot of the anti-polygamy arguments, I really don't get just what many folks apparently have in mind re "polygamy". There seem to be a lot of odd ideas about it entailing a very narrow range of situations.
Even Muslim countries tend to impose significant limits on polygamy, for the very reasons that I stated. Still, the fact that ages of consent for women in those countries are often in the single digits just proves my point.
You suggest that most men will not want to be polygamous given the opportunity. What are you basing that on? The idea that polygamy entails to great a responsibility? Hahahahaha! As if people don't have a general tendency to act irresponsibly, especially in the area of relationships. Or because most grown women will not willingly consent to it? That may work at first, but once a significant minority of women do consent, and the resultant shortage of wife material kicks in, this will create ideal conditions for forcing women at younger ages into marriage, by curbing civil rights, educational and employment opportunities, lowering the age of consent and finally transferring the power of consent to someone else.
One of the solutions for keeping the incidence of polygamy low that I've seen proposed here would involve limiting it to the very wealthy. Think about the social implications of that. Certainly the wealthy have a lot more to play with just because they are wealthy, but are you sure you want to create a society where basic legal rights are contingent upon wealth? I find that idea highly inconsistent with our egalitarian principles.
Besides, this kind of a qualification defeats the entire argument for polygamy. What's the point of legalizing it if you then impose laws limiting it to a tiny percentage of the population? If you claim that polygamy should be codified because some people want to be polygamous -- than how does making polygamy a benefit for the rich help poor people who want to be polygamists? Or middle-class people who want to practice polygamy? Arguing that polygamy should be legally recognized, but then adding the qualification that it should only be available to a handful of people, pretty much renders the argument null. Sort of like that other argument that keeps appearing here, about the legalization of drugs -- starting off with the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want and drugs should be legal, then adding the restrictions that would make drugs unobtainable for the vast majority of people who want them.
I agree 100 percent with everything you said except the bolded portion.
Regarding that bolded portion:
I think what you've suggested is ONE of the two likely scenarios, and holds 55 percent of the Probability Factor, outweighs the scenario I'm about to suggest, which is this (admittedly limited to a 45 percent Probability Factor -- which makes it still a formidable consideration):
The thing is, in many of the countries you're basing your suggestions on (and RIGHTLY basing, I must add) women are second-class citizens or even citizens in name only, having virtually no rights.
It may be a question of chicken/egg there, I don't know -- but I'm hesitant to place the cart before the horse.
In our country, where women retain some pretty powerful and egalitarian rights, it is entirely possible that the ensuing shortage of women (we are in COMPLETE agreement that this would occur) just might thrust a lot of power into the hands of women since the value of their sexual commodity (and let's not pretend such doesn't exist or is automatically insulting to suggest) would increase many-fold in a reversal of the dowry system (by way of example).
I think your scenario is MORE likely, with women potentially becoming commercialized and downgraded; but I think the alternative scenario would hold enough likelihood to merit consideration.
All that being said, I'm not against polygamy if folks are consenting; as with any marital system I see pros and cons, but if they're all eager and willing, let 'em have at it. The ones most likely to suffer are the kids and that's based more on human nature than any inherent failure in a polygamous system. While I won't pretend no one has ever had a successful polygamous home (some certainly have) it's been my observation humans operate better monogamously.
U.S.: I agree with you in that this is a chicken/egg scenario. Discussing polygamy in this context is a bit like discussing communism. Why is communism so strongly associated with oppression, when it's merely an economic system? Is it just because of an unfortunate historic coincidence that it's only been implemented in countries that were either highly oppressive to begin with or weakened by long periods of foreign domination? Or is there something about communism that makes it attractive to societies that have a history of authoritarian rule? And how would a historically liberal society fare under communism? I can't claim that my scenario is absolute and I can't predict with certainty how reality would work out. Still, inasmuch as predictions are to a large extent based on precedent, history simply affords us no example of a polygamous society that did not significantly oppress women.
Might the shortage of wives give women extra power? On a short-term basis, perhaps. But a woman's power decreases significantly once she enters a polygamous marriage, and outside of marriage, we'll still be left with the problem of large numbers of unattached young men who have no hope of securing a wife or even a girlfriend. When you mention that our society is egalitarian and women in it have rights, I think what you mean is that laws restricting women's liberties are unlikely to be passed since women's votes would be needed to pass them -- and women, of course, won't vote against their own interests. However, I think they could. In post-Revolutionary Iran, for example, women were not disenfranchised, but their civil rights and employment opportunities eroded quite rapidly; while it wasn't because of polygamy per se, I think the Iranian example shows that given the right conditions, people will willingly cede their own rights and liberties.
The shortage of wives -- and the resultant "surplus" of unattached men -- are likely to have a fairly immediate consequence in the form of increased rates of violent crime, prostitution, and trafficking in children of both sexes. That will create a sense of urgency that might just convince enough female voters to make possible laws that start small -- by slightly lowering the age of consent and creating certain incentives designed to encourage young women to marry instead of going to school, etc. Then, like slowly boiling a frog, measures designed to increase the pool of available wives will gradually become more and more radical. Bottom line is, over the long haul, a polygamous society simply can't afford to let women search themselves until they are 30.
That said, I believe as with anything, a balance should be struck between individual interests and those of society as a whole. I don't think the state should have any business interfering in private living arrangements among consenting adults. If several people want to form a polygamous relationship, let them. But at the same time, I don't believe such relationships should receive legal recognition for all the reasons I've stated.
Might the shortage of wives give women extra power? On a short-term basis, perhaps. But a woman's power decreases significantly once she enters a polygamous marriage,
With everything else, once more I'm in agreement.
However, given what you've stated in the quoted portion, I'd have to ask WHY?
A man cannot hold a woman prisoner in our country, let alone seven of them (let's not explore extremes). And given that with most willing marriages a woman has a man's ear, and even in a bad marriage can make herself heard much of the time (again, not talking extremes here), just being polygamous doesn't necessarily make the man THE provider -- although I'll admit readily only a wealthier man would likely take on multiple wives.
So the question would be WHY the bolded portion would be true? I can see where her personal power would decrease, but that would be somewhat true of a monogamous marriage as well. What I don't see is where her power as a woman would diminish.
However, given what you've stated in the quoted portion, I'd have to ask WHY?
A man cannot hold a woman prisoner in our country, let alone seven of them (let's not explore extremes). And given that with most willing marriages a woman has a man's ear, and even in a bad marriage can make herself heard much of the time (again, not talking extremes here), just being polygamous doesn't necessarily make the man THE provider -- although I'll admit readily only a wealthier man would likely take on multiple wives.
So the question would be WHY the bolded portion would be true? I can see where her personal power would decrease, but that would be somewhat true of a monogamous marriage as well. What I don't see is where her power as a woman would diminish.
i was wondering the same thing. i took the question to mean, "if polygamy was accepted in modern american society."
so if she was free to enter and exit a polygamous or monogamous marriage as she chose, i'm unclear on how it would necessarily be a problem for women.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
