The case for polygamy

[Flubber]

It would have to be if polygamy were to be mainstreamed.

There is no way in Hades that feminists, or most people, would agree that people could make commitments to others at the expense of prior commitments without the consent of the prior partners.

From reading about polyamory, informed consent is a cornerstone of the philosophy. That means that all partners know about all other partners, and bringing in new loves is usually subject to the veto of existing loves. And this isn't even at the marriage stage.

Sounds good-- All models are still possible though-- I should name them

1, Static group model-- A marriage is what it is at formation- If its a 5 way-- its a 5 way and a party leaving (divorcing) dissolves the entire union
2. Evolving group model-- a marriage exists until all but 1 end it-- Parties can be added on the consent of all and if one party wishes to leave or divorce-- they have to leave the entire group
3. Individualistic-- IN this model a person can be married to one or more people and in theory people could be married to each other and have individual different spouses=== I do not know if this could work-- A married to B and C while B is married to A and also X and Y

[notyoueither]

From reading about polyamory, most singles follow the 3rd model while they are dating one or many people. It's a lot like many 'monogamous' people before marriage or a serious relationship. The difference is that a polyamorist isn't going to want to sneak around behind people's backs once in a serious relationship. They'd only do it with the knowledge and consent of the existing serious partner(s). Whereas many 'monogamists' do screw around on the side.

Most 'families' would follow the 2nd model. People may come and go, but they often maintain links long after no longer being lovers. (The idea, afterall, is that you can love many, and that this is or may be good for you.) I'm not sure why the 1st model would ever be used, since with the consent of all 5 you could make it 6, or all 4 keep going if no. 5 left.

[Pax]

If it were a polygamous marriage in the U.S. then all parties would have to agree otherwise you could trick one person into marriage then decide to marry another person or you would be assuming a dictator role in the relationship and deciding who to bring in. Not cool at all.

[Flubber]

Most 'families' would follow the 2nd model. People may come and go, but they often maintain links long after no longer being lovers. (The idea, afterall, is that you can love many, and that this is or may be good for you.) I'm not sure why the 1st model would ever be used, since with the consent of all 5 you could make it 6, or all 4 keep going if no. 5 left.

I agree with your comments on model 1 but legalistically what it would mean is that every marriage is distinct. So the 5 way marriage ends in that someone divorces so the marriage is over. If the 4 want to continue, thats a separate and distinct marriage itself. To use a model like this, you would need the ability to remarry fairly quickly after divorce so that the 4some could continue

Model two I agree would probably be the one that makes the most sense in trying to create a legal structure that could ever accomodate polygamy. We would however need an entire new legal structure to contemplate how partial divorces work. If a 5 some sees a partner leave, are they entitled to a presumptive 20% share of all the pooled assets? Could a lesser income partrner that leaves find they are entitled to collect spousal support from the richest spouse but at the same time pay spousal support to the one that was stay-at-home? Would they pay child support and retain parental rights to children of the marriage where they had no biological connection?

There would be many things to determine. Philosophically deciding that polygamy is ok is one thing-- Attempting to actually implement it is an entirely different matter


I am still torn on this issue

1. I can see positive benefits in granting legal recognition to spouses that are in these types of relationships in fact if not at law.
2. The institution of marriage would change in a fundamental way that would be unlike any other change to date. Gay marriage did not change how marriage worked . Polygamy would. I don't know that this is a terrible thing in and of itself but I fear that it would permit marriage to be used even more as a tool for immigration and tax fraud than currently.
3. That said, the cavialier fashion of some traditional people getting married and divorced 10 times I think is more offensive to any ideal of the institution of marrriage than any stable long term loving multiperson bond.
4. I suffer from mindset. I have seen two person married couples all my life. Even gay marrige . . while its relatively new legally, I saw gay couples all my life as well. For me to switch out of the couple frame of mind is actually a little difficult

[Pax]

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-husband-lover-wants-one-big-happy-family-063203234.html

[Flubber]

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-husband-...063203234.html

So Dear Abby is not in favour of polygamy-- I, for one, am shocked.

[notyoueither]

That's technically not polygamy.

[Flubber]

That's technically not polygamy.

tehnically correct but I think my statement stands as a reasonable inference of her position based on her reaction to polyamory.


I did inquire of Mrs Flubber as to how she would feel about adding a second wife to assist us. She was not in favor .

[notyoueither]

Did you ask her if she wanted a boyfriend?

[Flubber]

Did you ask her if she wanted a boyfriend?

I did not. That may seem one-sided but is completely logical in circumstances .


The circumstances include a conversation on polygamy with friends where she opined that any woman that wants "TWO of you" , is crazy.

[notyoueither]

[Flubber]

There had been a lively discussion --- The ladies were into the wine-- The consensus among them was that "one man was demanding enough"

[notyoueither]

There are a lot of social norms that play a part in choices, and what people may feel comfortable reporting.

For instance, it seems to be 'cool' for women to be bi, not so much for men. Also, it seems that more people are willing (to report at least) for there to be one man and two women than one woman and many men.

The man with many female partners is a 'stud.' The woman with many male partners is a 'slut.' It takes some fairly liberated men to say 'have fun, dear.' As the woman in the Dear Abi said, they started out as swingers.

Of course, the truth is that a lot goes on that will not be brought into the open. For instance, the incidence of children not being genetically of the father is surprisingly (to me) high.

[notyoueither]

The book I referred to earlier makes some convincing arguments that the Darwinian (and Hobbsian) view of prehistoric life and family (the assumptions and many conclusions of evolutionary psychology) is a load of bunk, and that there was a whole lot of ****ing going on.

They argue that our views of what is natural for primates of our mental and physical characteristics is certainly not monogamy. When our societies try to force all individuals into that box a lot of damage is done to individuals and families.

Highly recommended reading.