Polygamy, Polyandry, Group Marriage

[Patine]

It's really not. I've posted quite a bit though and laid out my basic premise and a ton of tangential arguments. I know you've written a lot at me that I'm skipping over, but that's because I feel I've already addressed many of the exact points you've brought up and I don't feel like playing a fresh round of quote wars.
This was my opening post and a lot followed from that:


And keep in mind that we've gone on a lot of tangents but the point remains that your summary of my position as "a few chads will attract all the staceys" is wrong.

Joe Rogan asked Jordan Peterson if monogamy helped level the playing field for incels

Mary's basically right here.

At best it enables certain groups that the man can take multiple wives but the women can't take multiple husband's regardless if what the law says.

It also enables abuse say rich man has multiple wives. One decided to leave and instead of getting half or whatever she gets a % assuming assets haven't been hidden in another wives name.

It will disproportionately impact women.

You can already live in such relationships there's just no legal recognition.

Of course, this whole "issue" of @MaryKB is predicated on the bad stereotype that all men have the same list of desires and ideals for a partner, and all women do as well, which is blatantly false, despite highly shallow and superficial pop culture myths. Come on people, I thought you weren't in high school!

Moderator Action: Patine, please don't reference other posters who are clearly no longer with the forum and can't or won't respond to defend their position. --LM

 

[Zardnaar]

Of course, this whole "issue" of @MaryKB is predicated on the bad stereotype that all men have the same list of desires and ideals for a partner, and all women do as well, which is blatantly false, despite highly shallow and superficial pop culture myths. Come on people, I thought you weren't in high school!

Well the devil's going to work on ice skates as I agree with Mary for once.

Legalizing this does nothing for women. And most of the time it's going to be the man taking multiple partner's. It's cheaper than a divorce if you're well off and it raises a lot of other questions such as consent.

By that say I want to marry XYZ she has to consent to that and vice versa. What about I want to marry ABC and she wants to marry me. Does XYZ need to consent.

How about XYZ has young children no job and the husband says if you don't consent you're out on your ass and fight me for the money and she can't afford lawyers?

 

[H4run]

How about XYZ has young children no job and the husband says if you don't consent you're out on your ass and fight me for the money and she can't afford lawyers?

Then you are saying it must regulated by law? So none of the person involved get exploited?

 

[uppi]

Historically, marriages of multiple women to one man were much much more common than any other poly-marriages. This is a serious indication that if it was legalized, the mean gender imbalance would be heavily skewed, which would have negative effects on society. Therefore I would not risk it.

 

[cardgame]

Gender equality under the law has never existed simultaneously with polyamorous marriages.

 

[red_elk]

I remember discussing polygamy on another forum a while ago - there was a woman who called herself polyandric. When people asked her what does it mean, it turned out she was simply cheating on her husband for last two decades with different partners

People tend to use fancier words like polygamy/polyandry for what in fact is a usual adultery.
And IMO people who advocate for group marriage usually imagine themselves having multiple partners, but not being one of them.

 

[uppi]

Gender equality under the law has never existed simultaneously with polyamorous marriages.

Yeah, but that does not mean polyamourous marriages must be different under these conditions. The best you can argue is "we don't know".

 

[Hrothbern]

And IMO people who advocate for group marriage usually imagine themselves having multiple partners, but not being one of them.

When social cohesion is zero, except some people living in solitude, everybody is using everybody else.

The comedian Groucho Marx brought that to the ultimate:

I think we are more and deserve more than such a bleak direction

 

[Yeekim]

I remember discussing polygamy on another forum a while ago - there was a woman who called herself polyandric. When people asked her what does it mean, it turned out she was simply cheating on her husband for last two decades with different partners

People tend to use fancier words like polygamy/polyandry for what in fact is a usual adultery.
And IMO people who advocate for group marriage usually imagine themselves having multiple partners, but not being one of them.

So a friend of a friend felt his marriage was getting somewhat stale and suggested including another woman to spice things up.
His wife agreed and so they did.
The girls found out they got along really well, so after a while they kicked out the guy and are happily living together atm.

 

[red_elk]

So a friend of a friend felt his marriage was getting somewhat stale and suggested including another woman to spice things up.
His wife agreed and so they did.
The girls found out they got along really well, so after a while they kicked out the guy and are happily living together atm.

Yeah, heard about similar things too. Not counting harem-like relationships, IMO the real family of more than two partners would be extremely rare.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

. It's a bad idea from pragmatic and economic reasons let alone moral ones

So I agree with those who say that we can work out practical legal solutions to some of the issues that poly marriage brings. It's the social side of the issue that I think is intractable at the moment. Heavy emphasis on 'at the moment'. I'd be curious to see if this is another generational issue - I wonder how much higher support is for legalizing poly marriage among the youth. Is it high enough that when the boomers start to die off that it becomes accepted? Or is it low enough that ~all the boomers will have to die before it's accepted? That's two very different things.

I think the acceptance of gay marriage was helped by the die off of the greatest generation. I don't think boomers were fully on board with it when it came to pass, but enough of them were that coupled with Gen X/millenials/Gen Z, it had enough support to go over the top once enough of the greatest generation was gone (as they were absolutely against it I assume).

Gender equality under the law has never existed simultaneously with polyamorous marriages.

And one of the overarching points I've been getting at is maybe we should try for real gender equality before introducing something which could potentially disrupt society and have horrific outcomes. I think the potential harm outweighs the potential gain in civil liberties, and the nature of the harm itself is such that people could wind up de facto losing civil liberties by getting into relationships with massive power imbalances of various kinds - even more imbalanced than what is possible in monogamous marriage. I also do not see a natural constituency for this issue either, which makes it even more problematic politically and morally.

 

[Farm Boy]

People tend to use fancier words like polygamy/polyandry for what in fact is a usual adultery.
And IMO people who advocate for group marriage usually imagine themselves having multiple partners, but not being one of them.

It's a little different when the discussion revolves around making it not adultery by definition.

But for the second sentence. Good lord, no. Talk about a revolting proposition. Then again, that would generally be the divergence with the big C conservatives and their dopplegangers, the American Liberal*. Just because it's gross and a terrible idea for most people doesn't mean I have a particularly good reason I should structure their families for them and dictate the activities of consenting adults' genitals. The obligation would be to create legal structures that work to empower, provide institutional avenues to remedy abuse, and get the hell out of the way of people making their own mistakes and triumphs in life. It's like literally the point. Not being like me, or how I think my offspring should aim to be.

*Non Americans can sort out their own places on the labels.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

and dictate the activities of consenting adults' genitals

No one is advocating for this. Opposing state-sanctioned poly marriage is not the same as supporting prohibitions on consensual sex acts.

The obligation would be to create legal structures that work to empower, provide institutional avenues to remedy abuse, and get the hell out of the way making their own mistakes and triumphs in life.

We already have legal structures to empower and all that and yet we still have a misogynist patriarchy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And IMO people who advocate for group marriage usually imagine themselves having multiple partners, but not being one of them.

I'm your counter-example. I can easily picture myself in a social co-op with a woman and another man, and even more easily picture myself in a social co-op with a couple of women and a handful of men if two women who can get along could actually be found. There is no way on this Earth that I would, or ever would have, tried to deal with more than one woman at a time by myself. In a one night stand sexual escapade, sure, but in a relationship? No way, no freakin' way.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm your counter-example

There's a difference between what individuals will do and what society will do. What % of gun owners go on to gun down classrooms full of first graders?

The specter of some tiny % of poly marriages ending up as breeder compounds means society will reject attempts to legalize poly marriages for some time yet.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's a difference between what individuals will do and what society will do. What % of gun owners go on to gun down classrooms full of first graders?

The specter of some tiny % of poly marriages ending up as breeder compounds means society will reject attempts to legalize poly marriages for some time yet.

He made a claim about how "most people" think about the issue. I provided a counter-example of someone who thinks differently, and in it I think I suggested that he is actually wrong about how most people think. But let me spell it out.

His expectation about who supports multipartner social co-oops and how they picture themselves in one is based on pure sex. Most people in opposition seem to be thinking of it purely this way; "rich men with harems and no one else can get laid," blah blah blah. People who support multi-partner social co-ops being given legal status, ie access to the same kind of tax advantages, insurance beneficiary qualifications, etc aren't generally worried about sex. If you want to have an orgy romp some night with a couple partners or even a whole crowd, or over a long weekend, that's already available and totally your business. Multi-partner social co-ops are too, but they aren't allowed to interact with the world the way they want...and the way everyone else does...despite generally being far more responsible.

Social co-ops are about group, not group sex.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yup, I agree most of these marriages would not be problematic! That's not the bone I'm picking at.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yup, I agree most of these marriages would not be problematic! That's not the bone I'm picking at.

I know. You are picking at the "somehow if we did that it would legitimize the kind of polygamy outposts run out in the desert by radical Mormons" bone. Which is inaccurate, because that kind of thing is illegal in myriad ways and still would be so they would not be in any way legitimized. You are also refusing to recognize the direct benefits that would accrue to everyone from legally recognizing lawfully formed social co-ops, which you are well within your rights to refuse to do, since said benefits are currently hypothetical even though I think they are very plausible.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I know. You are picking at the "somehow if we did that it would legitimize the kind of polygamy outposts run out in the desert by radical Mormons" bone. Which is inaccurate, because that kind of thing is illegal in myriad ways and still would be so they would not be in any way legitimized. You are also refusing to recognize the direct benefits that would accrue to everyone from legally recognizing lawfully formed social co-ops, which you are well within your rights to refuse to do, since said benefits are currently hypothetical even though I think they are very plausible.

The specter of some tiny % of poly marriages ending up as breeder compounds

I meant that word exactly as it's defined:

something widely feared as a possible unpleasant or dangerous occurrence.

(With key clauses bolded)


Fears do not have to be rational to be realized.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I dunno about the "widely" part.