Is Polyandry or Polygamy viable?

Is a marriage of multiple partners, of either or both sexes, a workable thing in America, or anywhere else?

In Robert Heinlein's novel, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", I was fascinated with the multi-generational, group marriage of the characters Manny, Wyoming, etc., and wonder how that would 'go' in today's world.

It is 2003 - the 'future' - for corn sakes, and seems we need some alternatives for how we live today (like alternative energy, etc.). I mean the nuclear family is not what it once was, and with the ups and downs of the economy, war, etc., maybe an extended family does offer some extra security (financially, emotionally) and social interaction.

What are your thoughts/ideas on this?

 

Polygamy already happens both in America and also around the world.

It's a viable option, but societal backlash against it (for whatever reason) and the fact that it would take a special understanding to be able to share your partenar with another person (seeing that people are brought up believeing that a two person marriage is the way to go) is what would make it hard.

Kithera

 

Polgyamy and Polyandry are both viable in that they already occur in society (Polygamy occurs with great frequency in Muslim culture, and Polyandry occurs in a small, isolated culture on the Indian Sub-continent). But as kit' hinted at, there are more serious ethical considerations that should be raised when thinking about the subject.

I, for one, wouldn't have a problem with Polygamy. The more the merrier, I say (as long as they're female though !

 

There seems to be some confusion about terms. Polyandry and polygyny are both forms of polygamy - polyandry and polygamy are not separate things; rather, one is a form of the other.

Polygamy - the marriage of two or more people to one person.

Polyandry - the marriage of two or more men to one woman.

Polygyny - the marriage of two or more women to one man.

I think the thread title would be better phrased 'Is Polyandry or Polygyny viable?'

- Scarlet.

 

Is polygamy viable?

Only for Mormons.

 

Sure it is. Don't these people have a civil right to be married if they think it's right for them?

 

Here's how it is in the US:

Polygamy of all forms is outlawed, even in Utah. But Polygamy is still alive and well, with an estimated 30,000 people living in covert polygamous relationships. People are good at just looking the other way.

I got this information from a book I just read, entitled "Mormon America". I recommend it if you're curious about this topic.

 

How does the book define a "covert relationship?"

Multiple people may live together in an approximate polygamous relationship, but there would be no offcial benefit to such an arrangement.

 

Just to forestall any more wisecracks about Mormons, let me state a few facts:

1) While the LDS Church practiced polygamy until it was outlawed and the law was upheld by the Supreme Court, it does not support that practice now.

2) Even at its height, not more than 3% of the Church was involved in a polygamous relationship (counting both males and females).

3) Any members of the Church who are found to be in polygamous relationships are excommunicated from the Church.

I will also note that while we ended the practice of plural marriage, we have never abandoned the doctrine of eternal marriage upon which it was based.

However, any discussion of LDS beliefs would be better suited for the thread on Mormonism. You can use it as examples (although I would counsel you to make sure you have accurate information, since I will be calling you on it), but this is not the place to ridicule or attack any beliefs.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I doubt that polygyny would be viable for women who have grown up in the current American atmosphere, where you're taught that you will grow up to marry one man.

But it could probably be done if the women were brought up with the understanding that they would be expected to share a husband. It happens all the time in other cultures.

It all depends on what expectation you set.

But regardless of whether the practice is common, you would probably see problems of jealousy any time multiple women are told to share a husband. Plus, in the cultures where polygyny is practiced, men usually sell their daughters to the highest bidder - meaning a woman's worth is only what she can bring from marriage.

 

It is hardly a trend. Most people today wish a relationship were the partner delivers most of their love and atention to them, so are unwilling to share them with others. More a cultural thing than anything else, I hope. If the people are OK with the idea of sharing a husband or wife, well, that's their business.

 

But the unwillingness to share, the jealousy and the bitterness that can arise, will happen regardless of whether the practice is accepted. Women brought up in a culture where monogamy is the rule will have more problems accepting other wives, but even women taught to accept polygamy aren't going to be thrilled with the arrangement. Look at the Biblical story of Rachel and Leah, for example - both knew that their husband loved one of them more, and it was a source of contention between them. Not only that, when we studied polygamy in my Anthropology class, we saw videos of women in India and Africa talking about their (polygamous) marriages. They said they would certainly prefer it if their husband had no other wives, but in their culture it wasn't feasible. The man might need more women to look after his livestock and tend the land, for example, and they couldn't demand monogamy because it wasn't economical. Or their fathers had decided whom they would marry, so they couldn't choose a monogamous relationship.

 

Is this thread about the relationship itself, or about whether or not it should be legal?

 

I think we need to add one more here.

Polyamory is based on a combination of Latin and French words that translates
to "many loves".

Polyamory is when a person or a couple has an open relationship and is free to
pursue multiple loving relationships with total honesty and the full agreement of
each of those involved with them.

Each of these relationships tend to have depth and substance...
polyamory is not about casual or one-time sexual encounters nor is it about lying
or cheating on your established partner.

 

What we should pay attention to is NOT if Polygamy is viable but the fact that we live in a generally monogamous society and the number of people who live in that society that WANT it or are DISPOSED to it being viable.

In my view, polygamy is a tenuous enterprise. Not because it violates any religious beliefs, but because it violates simple economics -- though these are not of a monetary nature.

The first rule of polygamy is that you must share a partner or a partner must share you, or both. Unless the last case exists this creates a disparity in relationship equality. One partner has other resources to draw upon that the other does not. At any time the partner can say "now this person" and for whoever does not have a second partner that's just, well, tough. Whether or not the partner in the more advantageous position would do this or not is not the point: the point is that the dispairity exists and there is really no rational reason for it other than the desires of the person in the advantageous position. Thus the person in the advantageous position is 'safe'; never has to 'worry' and is safe in the knowledge that the other person can be 'replaced'.

Many of you would say 'but its love so neither wife or husband can ever be truly replaced'. I severely doubt this, and it depends on your definition of 'replaced'. Just because you feel crappy that a relationship with one of your spouses has ended doesn't mean they were irreplacible.

The benefit of monogomy is PRECISELY becuase both members are on equal ground and have everything equal at stake. It has to do with the knowledge the other person will never leave and always be at your side because the moment they have to leave yours for someone else's might be the time you need them most. Modern monogomy mostly tends to crop up out of sexual fetishes or the inability or unwillingness to choose a partner.

This however does not necessarily apply to mutual polygamy where both partners are in technically equal positions. But here there are even complications. First, the case of open relationships -- considering neither partner is willing to stake everything in one person there is a natural question as to what the person's stake is in that relationship. What real assurance is there that any relationship one person has in the open relationship is in any way distinct from any other relationship they happen to be in? If they had to choose, which one would win out? And it's rediculous to say 'we can't compare these relationships'. Of COURSE we can! Simple laws of supply and demand dictate that we do! And we do so because each is a SEPERATE relationship. Essentially, those in seperate open relationships get bonus marks for being truthful but very little else. There is a ceiling of depth already in each seperate relationship they conduct because at the very beginning there is a defined limit to how far that person will go for one of thier 'spouses'.

The ONLY way polygamy I believe truly works in economics is essentially a SINGLE relationship with multiple people. That is, each person knows and is at least emotionally tied to everyone else. The only way for someone not to be jelous that thier spouse is having sex with someone else is if you are essentially the spouse of that someone else as well. Then it truly becomes not a case of psychology but logistics: the only reason they are with that person and not you is because you happen to not be in the room. Whereas in two seperate relationships you would be likely told to get out.

Are these last relationship types even possible? I'm not sure, but they would be rare: at least two people would be required to indulge in homosexuality, which is always a touchy subject, let alone the concept of a three-way to more-way 'marriage'.