Polygamy the next big thing.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

[Link]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

From your link...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

From your link...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither does Polygamy or Polygyny.

The point is that, in Developed countries (whatever they are), we shouldn't assume that polygyny would become more common than polyandry. We have no reason to think that outside of rather isolated religious movements.

[Link]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

From your link...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither does Polygamy or Polygyny.

I have lived and spent time in multiple countries where polygamy is widespread.  What I am posting in this thread is not theory, my friend.

I like the Atlantic.  I have a subscription to it.  But I also have a passport.  Reading a highbrow left leaning rag is not a substitute for on the ground research.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

From your link...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither does Polygamy or Polygyny.

I have live and spent time in multiple countries where polygamy is widespread.  What I am posting in this thread is not theory, my friend.

No doubt. But it does not exist in most of the world either. More of the world, sure, but not most. But the existence of Polyandry is not zero (May need a sub for those two articles).

[opebo]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

What's the difference?  I didn't make any assumptions - I just think Americans will oppose anything which smacks of selfish hedonism and promiscuity.  They oppose the enjoyment of sex for both males and females.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

What's the difference?  I didn't make any assumptions - I just think Americans will oppose anything which smacks of selfish hedonism and promiscuity.  They oppose the enjoyment of sex for both males and females.

I wasn't talking to you, Opie, and yes I agree.

[John Dibble]

For the record my comment was also inclusive of other types of group marriages, though my gut says that even if legal polygny would be more pervasive than polyandry. (though I couldn't estimate how common group marriages involving more than one of each sex might be in relation)

[afleitch]

Marriage is more likely to disappear as a social and civil concept before then.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Marriage is more likely to disappear as a social and civil concept before then.

This is by far the most likely actually or would become some ceremony without any legal significance. I'm all for that (would take forever to change the laws though).

[Link]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

From your link...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither does Polygamy or Polygyny.

I have live and spent time in multiple countries where polygamy is widespread.  What I am posting in this thread is not theory, my friend.

No doubt. But it does not exist in most of the world either. More of the world, sure, but not most. But the existence of Polyandry is not zero (May need a sub for those two articles).

Here is an incomplete map of the polygamy world...



Anyone who puts that conservative estimate in the same sentence as polyandry is kidding themselves.  If we all lived in Tibet we would be having a different conversation.  Fortunately we don't.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

And this proves...?

The fact the one is more common than the other is due to history, not due to some spurious human nature. If it was, then why is there Polyandry? (And why can't there be in the future?)

For the record, I do think if Polygamy was legalized and accepted as homosexuality is now we would have more Polygynous type relationships but that would be a product of culture and history, not anything else (And we would have Polyandrous ones too, no doubt).

Also, as that originally article points out, polyandry is very likely undereported due to the belief that 'it just doesn't happen'.

[Link]

And this proves...?

It is normal for people to react within the confines of cultural norms.  If they are by and large unaware of polyandry why would they care about it or bring it up in this thread?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

And this proves...?

It is normal for people to react within the confines of cultural norms.  If they are by and large unaware of polyandry why would they care about it or bring it up in this thread?

Fair enough.

Except that if Polygamy is going to through a period of 'normalization' like homosexuality has done and which it will have to in order to be legalized then most of those norms will have to come into question by definition. But no doubt, you would probably be proved (mostly) right.

[Link]

And this proves...?

It is normal for people to react within the confines of cultural norms.  If they are by and large unaware of polyandry why would they care about it or bring it up in this thread?

Fair enough.

Except that if Polygamy is going to through a period of 'normalization' like homosexuality has done and which it will have to in order to be legalized then most of those norms will have to come into question by definition. But no doubt, you would probably be proved (mostly) right.

My point was not that polyandry doesn't exist.  Clearly it does.  Even if I didn't know about it I can't rule out it's existence somewhere on the planet.

My point was it does not surprise me no one would bring it up.  We have tons of immigrants in this country who come from polygamous societies and actually have polygamy in their families.  And of course there are the Mormons.

The thing is as far as I know marriage structures arouse to address issues that various cultures had to deal with.  It's not like some guy saw a porn movie with some GGB action and thought man that's hot!  I have seen studies that have postulated that introduction of modern technology into areas with incompatible marriage structures may be responsible for a large chunk of the issues we see in large swaths of the globe.

I see no benefit to the broader society for making polygamy legal.  Every culture has rules for marriage.  You change them at your own peril.  Given the way our society has evolved gay marriage makes sense.  You can enjoy all the benefits of a two income household (tax breaks, inheritance, etc).  There is no down side to society.

[anvi]

I don't think it will become a movement.  But, wrt consensual polyandry and polygamy, I support both.  In the abstract, and for myself.  And, in my case, as long as there are no kids.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Utah's laws against cohabitation seem pretty unconstitutional to me.

[opebo]

I'm pretty sure polygamy both ways existed in Thailand before the Westernization.

[Indy Texas]

You can't compare same-sex marriage to polygamy.

There is a difference between prohibiting a certain class of people from entering into a legal contract (which is what banning SSM does) and limiting the number of such contracts one can enter into (which is what forbidding polygamy is about).

[DC Al Fine]

You can't compare same-sex marriage to polygamy.

There is a difference between prohibiting a certain class of people from entering into a legal contract (which is what banning SSM does) and limiting the number of such contracts one can enter into (which is what forbidding polygamy is about).

I don't see that logic playing in the average Joe's head. Marriage in most people's eyes has to do with love, not a contract. Hence their support of SSM/divorce. (Simplistically: Tow boys should be allowed to marry if they love each other/if you aren't in love, you shouldn't have to stay together)

Once they get the idea you can love two people at the same time, they'll think it's ok.

[DemPGH]

There are a lot of problems with polygamy - it almost always disenfranchises women, and to be honest in a first world country it doesn't make a lot of economic sense. Someone else may have made that argument better than me, but I see cohabitation with multiple partners as more likely than polygamy. Polygamy is normally a "collection of wives" held by some cult leader or supremely wealthy individual who views women as trophies. 

[angus]

insurance companies will fight it, I think.

[Hatman 🍁]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

From your link...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither does Polygamy or Polygyny.

I have live and spent time in multiple countries where polygamy is widespread.  What I am posting in this thread is not theory, my friend.

No doubt. But it does not exist in most of the world either. More of the world, sure, but not most. But the existence of Polyandry is not zero (May need a sub for those two articles).

Here is an incomplete map of the polygamy world...



Anyone who puts that conservative estimate in the same sentence as polyandry is kidding themselves.  If we all lived in Tibet we would be having a different conversation.  Fortunately we don't.

Swaziland and South Africa should be Green, no? At least they both have polygamous leaders.


Anyways, I'm against Polygamy. I can get behind Triumvirate type marriages, but Polygamy is an inherently misogynistic institution. There's nothing "equal" about polygamy. In a triumvirate marriage, the relationship would at least in theory not be misogynistic. In that type of marriage, all three people would be married to each other.

[politicus]

There are a lot of problems with polygamy - it almost always disenfranchises women, and to be honest in a first world country it doesn't make a lot of economic sense. Someone else may have made that argument better than me, but I see cohabitation with multiple partners as more likely than polygamy. Polygamy is normally a "collection of wives" held by some cult leader or supremely wealthy individual who views women as trophies. 

I am against polygamy as well, but in a modern Western context it would likely be about 50% polyandry/50% polygyny outside of Islamic circles. I doubt many Western women would enter a polygynic marriage. It would be a niche thing outside of minority communities.

Not directed at you, but since people still confuse it:

Polygamy = being married to multiple partners. Either as Polyandry (1 wife and several husbands) or Polygyny ( 1 husbond and several wives).

[Hash]

Polygamy is illegal under South African law, but it is legal under customary law and legislation affords polygamous unions various benefits.