Morality and legality of polygamy

[Doddibot]

We haven't really had a debate over polygamy per se (the closest was a debate 2 years ago about polygamous marriage benefits (http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=336018)).

So, firstly, do you think polygamous relationships are morally acceptable? Assume the relationship is between consenting adults.

Second, do you think we should legally recognise such relationships in the same way we do marriage between couples? Again, assume informed consent for all involved.

In my opinion, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I contend there are no issues with polygamous relationships that do not exist with monogamous relationships. It's just as wrong to not legally recognise polygamy as it is to not legally recognise inter-racial or homosexual (or incestuous, but that's another debate (http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?p=2315908)) marriage.

Note on terminology (for the purposes of this thread)
Polygamy = multiple partners
Polygyny = multiple wives
Polyandry = multiple husbands

So, what do you think?

[fakepeeps7]

I think that it's very difficult to define "consenting adults" because so many of the people who practice polygamy have been brought up in oppressive environments where polygamy is not really viewed as a choice; it's a way of life, and you'll do it or be damned.

Until there's widespread polyandry as well (and not just polygyny, which is what we usually see), the practice is going to continue to oppress women and put a strain on the men (just look at what has happened with the "lost boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_%28polygamy%29)" of fundamentalist Mormonism).

If people are truly "consenting adults", I don't have a problem with it. But most of these cases seem to have a religious basis, and I would question whether religious coercion can lead to "consent" in any meaningful sense.

[Doddibot]

I think that it's very difficult to define "consenting adults" because so many of the people who practice polygamy have been brought up in oppressive environments where polygamy is not really viewed as a choice; it's a way of life, and you'll do it or be damned.
This is true, but until very recently was true of monogamy as well (and arguably still is): girls brought up to assume that being married to a man is the only worthwhile option in life.

Of course, this simply means polygamous marriages must be vetted for true consent. And pressured, arranged or otherwise not truly consensual monogamous marriages should likewise be closely scrutinised, and probably prohibited, as well.

[Oaktree]

I can't say I understand polygamy. In my mind, love cannot really be shared equally among more than two people. Social dynamics are very different when you add a third person; it's less intimate and more polarized. For all I know, though, this may just be the way my mind works. It may be that there are people who can feel the intimacy with multiple partners. And, for that matter, not all relationships are about deep, intimate love. Some people get involved for pleasure, stability, or a variety of other reasons. My personal tastes aren't any more 'right' than most other people's (I say 'most' because rape, pedophilia, and bestiality are still very wrong), so I've got no right to rain on anyone's parade in that regard. As long as it is consensual, I don't think there is a problem with any sort of sexual relationship.

Edit: I want to clarify my stance on this: sexuality (as long as it is consensual) is not a moral issue. It is a matter of taste. There is nothing inherently harmful in sexuality and, while it's abuse can lead to exploitation, in it's purest forms it is about pleasure and love. I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

[Doddibot]

In my mind, love cannot really be shared equally among more than two people.
You mean romantic love, yes? Every other form of love seems to be pretty easy to give to many, like a mother loving each of her children. (Not shared, that implies it's limited)

I don't see any reason why romantic love need be any different.

[Vanito]

If its done on a completely voluntarily basis and with no religious brainwashing I dont see the problem in it.

[jooxis]

I don't think it's right to allow polygyny and not polyandry (which is usually the case, among mormons and muslims, only the man may have multiple wives).

However I still find it kind of stupid. Where would we draw the line? How many partners should we set the limit at? 100? 200? Some Egyptian pharaohs had hundreds of wives... it kind of opens the door for ridiculousness, in my opinion. Even though people marry for many different reasons, I think it all becomes pointless if you marry someone but can still add dozens of more people to that marriage later on.
Even though people don't always marry out of love, the notion still exists that "romantic love" is somehow implied in a marriage, and I am not convinced such a thing can exist between more than two people. If it were legalized I would think the word "marriage" has run its course - should be called "joint benefits" or something.

Possibly my opinion stems from some sort of ignorance/bias. I truly can't understand how anyone would want to marry more than one person. So I don't know.

[Doddibot]

Where would we draw the line?
Why should we draw a line?

If it were legalized I would think the word "marriage" has run its course - should be called "joint benefits" or something.
Agreed. People already marry solely for the legal benefits, and unlike the movie 'The Proposal', don't end up falling in love at all.

[grumpy_otter]

The religiously-based polygyny infuriates me--it is nothing more than yet another way to oppress women and remove their choices. However, many of the women in these relationships speak with love of their fellow wives--they like having other women around to help with the running of the family. That's the cool part of it.

But I think the ideal would be a balanced group of 6-8--any larger than that and y'all would have to be really rich to afford to live together. One of the great benefits of polygamy is it takes the pressure off of having to love one person all day, every day. Anyone who has been in a long-term relationship knows that sometimes someone will just drive you nuts. A larger group eases that pressure.

Among mammals, monogamy is non-existent.* It's only humans who decided to go that route (largely because men wanted to be sure they were the fathers of their heirs.) I think it would be great if people could embrace a system that would be financially beneficial and more stable for the kids.

*correct me if I'm wrong on that--but I can't think of any mammals who bond in pairs.

EDIT: Okay--looks like about 3% of mammals are monogamous, but only in relation to mating. Even if they only mate with one partner, they live with family groups. There seems to be none where hubby and wife live alone with the kids, like humans tend to do. (ARE there any animals like that?)

[Neerie]

I don't see anything morally wrong with poligamy, provided it is 100% consentual, not religiously based, and that polyandry and polygyny have equal value.

That being said, most people have trouble supporting healthy relationships (and here I mean relationships in the broad sense, not just romantic ones), often not even realizing their own wrongdoings or misconceptions about what relationships should be about, and it mostly boils down to miscommunication, or lack of communication as a whole. So in the case of a polygamous household, for it to work out, it would have to be made of very balanced people who communicate well and honnestly. A polygamous household is basically a small community, but with more strings attached and more potential for rivalry, jealousy, envy, etc. Unless people in such a relationship is not well versed in communicating openly and honnestly, as well as being good listener, this is a ticking time bomb.

[Purity4]

EDIT: Okay--looks like about 3% of mammals are monogamous, but only in relation to mating. Even if they only mate with one partner, they live with family groups. There seems to be none where hubby and wife live alone with the kids, like humans tend to do. (ARE there any animals like that?)

Only 3%? I thought there were more. However, I wanted to add that we haven't always lived so isolated. It was once the norm that families lived with their extended families, within the neighborhoods they grew up in, with grandparents living under the same roof.

[grumpy_otter]

Only 3%? I thought there were more. However, I wanted to add that we haven't always lived so isolated. It was once the norm that families lived with their extended families, within the neighborhoods they grew up in, with grandparents living under the same roof.

I think that's more "normal" for humans--this whole separation of families away from the "village" style seems wrong. Which is maybe why I think polygamy is such a great idea.

[fakepeeps7]

I think that's more "normal" for humans--this whole separation of families away from the "village" style seems wrong. Which is maybe why I think polygamy is such a great idea.

One small family is more than enough for a lot of people. I, for one, wouldn't want so many "mothers" telling me what to do! :lol:

[grumpy_otter]

One small family is more than enough for a lot of people. I, for one, wouldn't want so many "mothers" telling me what to do! :lol:

But wouldn't it be fun?

"Mom A told me I could go to the movies and to ask you to give me money! And Dad C said you would loan me the car!"

Mom B "Oh, okay. . . "

:)

[fakepeeps7]

But wouldn't it be fun?

"Mom A told me I could go to the movies and to ask you to give me money! And Dad C said you would loan me the car!"

Mom B "Oh, okay. . . "

:)

Except that most polygamist families don't let their kids go to the movies (lest they be corrupted by the "evil" outside world).

I don't think it would be much fun at all. But that's just me.

[kattenijin]

Except that most polygamist families don't let their kids go to the movies (lest they be corrupted by the "evil" outside world).

I don't think it would be much fun at all. But that's just me.

That isn't so much a function of the family being polygamous as it is that most polygamous families are from a fundamentalist sect of a religion.

[fakepeeps7]

That isn't so much a function of the family being polygamous as it is that most polygamous families are from a fundamentalist sect of a religion.

That's true. I just don't have any examples of polygamous families that aren't religious. Maybe they would give their kids the car keys... I really don't know.

[Oaktree]

You mean romantic love, yes? Every other form of love seems to be pretty easy to give to many, like a mother loving each of her children. (Not shared, that implies it's limited)

I don't see any reason why romantic love need be any different.

I did mean romantic love. While I have no experience with romantic love (so I should probably shut my mouth now, but I'm not), it seems to me that jealousy and favoritism would sour a polygamous relationship. It seems to be part of the nature of women, at least, to want to have a man to herself, not sharing with other women. This makes sense evolutionarily, as the man would provide for the family, which becomes more difficult the more wives and children he has to care for. The fewer women you share your husband with, the more of his efforts are devoted to you and your child. This seems to be ingrained in the female brain. That's not to say that all women are that way, or that it is best for it to be that way, but I don't think most women would be comfortable with polygamy, unless they were raised to think they're supposed to be okay with it.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I can't say I understand polygamy. In my mind, love cannot really be shared equally among more than two people. Social dynamics are very different when you add a third person; it's less intimate and more polarized. For all I know, though, this may just be the way my mind works. It may be that there are people who can feel the intimacy with multiple partners. And, for that matter, not all relationships are about deep, intimate love. Some people get involved for pleasure, stability, or a variety of other reasons. My personal tastes aren't any more 'right' than most other people's (I say 'most' because rape, pedophilia, and bestiality are still very wrong), so I've got no right to rain on anyone's parade in that regard. As long as it is consensual, I don't think there is a problem with any sort of sexual relationship.

Edit: I want to clarify my stance on this: sexuality (as long as it is consensual) is not a moral issue. It is a matter of taste. There is nothing inherently harmful in sexuality and, while it's abuse can lead to exploitation, in it's purest forms it is about pleasure and love. I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

bold FTW.

also like to add that i pretty much agree with the sentiment that as long as its consenting adults, i cant fairly say i have any strong feelings toward it.
long as it doesnt impede on my own preferences, im good. :up:

so long as its safe, happy, nobodys forced, i cant even really say im entitled to have a problem with it.
i wouldnt choose it for myself. but that doesnt mean it should dictate whether other people should be able to choose it, COUGHCOUGHABORTIONCOUGHCOUGHGAYMARRIAGECOUGHCOUGHSUBLIMINALCOUGHMESSAGECOUGH.

[davidmorgan744]

We talks about the cultured and sophisticated society than there will be no place for polygamy at ll. There should be only two partners for a happy and successful life and multiplicity makes it trouble to handle.

[Vanito]

There are some polygamous (M/F/F and F/M/M) couples in the more extreme 24/7 BDSM community. They are not based on religion but on completely different grounds. They commonly are built upon consensual agreement and trust, unlike many of the religious polygamous relationships which are often based on one partner using religion as an excuse to get their way. Consensual polygamy can work, if all partners are interested in developing such a relationship in the first place.

[fragglerocks]

I don't even want ONE boyfriend. Much less TWO! ;)

But I will say that the one time I let a significant other bring someone else to the bedroom, it ended in a big ball of jealous screaming and eventually a break-up. Which is odd, because I was totally okay with it at first. That almost leads me to believe that it isn't natural behavior for human beings. But all I have to draw from is that one experience. I'm sure that there are maybe others that can handle it completely. And once again, if they aren't hurting anybody, then I don't really take issue.

[kennyinbmore]

I think if a man want double the misery and double the nagging about taking out the trash he should be able to have as many wives as he wants :lol:

There are some polygamous (M/F/F and F/M/M) couples in the more extreme 24/7 BDSM community.

Well technically polygamy includes marriage. What you're talking about is Polyamory and it's not just exclusive to the BDSM lifestyle. I know first hand. ;)

[KittyCarey]

I've just finished reading a novel called A Brother's Price by Wen Spencer about a society with far more women than men and where all the families are polygynous relationships between a group of sisters and their husband - and the women are in charge. I recommend it, because it shows a way of living that is different but not necessarily worse at least than many real societies.

I think polygamy generally is something people have to be careful about - but then so is marriage. A wife/husband can be abused in a monogamous marriage as well, and wouldn't have anyone else to spot it. So I don't see why people shouldn't if they want to - just as long as it's consensual.

[Mistermook]

I wouldn't do it myself (except maybe for tax purposes), but I don't have a problem with polygamy as a principle. On the other hand, the way polygamy is practices as a practical matter appears boorish most of the time even when it doesn't have other issues like child abuse going on. And, on the other hand, screwed up marriages aren't the sole province of polygamous, therefore I can't see any reason to ban them.

My main issue with polygamy off the top of my head is that it could get really complicated with the division of estates, child support issues, divorce/alimony, and the like without a set of laws designed to address the issues directly. You know, places where the law is already really complicated and lots of people have strong opinions on things already, without adding "what happens when you divorce your wife, but not your husband?" to the mix.