Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Page / 4
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 2:32:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2007 2:33:19 PM EDT by wise_jake]

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Watch the show "Big Love" and you will quickly see the cons.

In one specific "flavor" of polygamy that is not being discussed in this thread...... not by the OP, at least.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 3:11:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By SevenPaul7:
Having dealt with the offspring of a certain group out of southern Utah, (I'm trying to be delicate here) these people were not 'pleasing to the eye'. Not the kid's fault they were butt ugly, males and females.

And in every known situation, the young males were pushed out of the nest, leaving the young females for a bunch of old reprobates.


Some good points. I would like to bring some historical perspective into this.

Polygamy in Utah 150 years ago was very different than today for a number of reasons. First of all, there was no government welfare or entitlement system to exploit like there is today. So if a man was going to marry more than one woman he better be confident that he could provide for her.

Contrast that to how modern polygamist abuse the system: www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2142621

Secondly, polygamy (polygany) wasn't illegal 150 years ago. So the communities weren't living "underground" at the time and weren't havens for predators.

Contrast that to today where polygamy is illegal but for years law enforcement hasn't wanted to prosecute it or even touch the issue if they can possibly avoid it. The result is that these modern polygamist communities operate largely under the radar and are havens for people who prey on women and children.


Having pointed those things out, I'm not advocating that people choose a polygamist lifestyle. Just showing how it is logically incorrect to look at how most polygamist communities operate today and assume that it was lived the same way 150 years ago.


I'm not taking a potshot at the current LDS church, they are most certainly not polygamous. (The guys may wanna, but their wives would beat them senseless)

Just my observation the kids from these 'unions' were (indelicate here, bear with me) uuhhh plain? And kind of 'slow'?
And my brief peek into LDS history shows that some men were given 'duty' wives (older widders with kids) and occasionally a 'pleasure wife'.
Now a certain Bishop (during those early days) didn't like being rebuffed by a young lady he had an eye on, so he ordered her betrothed to be castrated. Not a daily occurrence, but one of the problems associated with having Power and a polygamous society.
I'm certainly not a prude, I think Nevada has the best approach to the world's oldest profession.
But from a personal observation, the physical effects (plain and dumb offspring) of polygamous societies outweighs any benefits. And I don't know why these children were like that, just it was very noticeable.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 3:21:24 PM EDT
I don't think you have considered the impact that multiple mother in laws would have on your happiness.

Fuck that shit. One is one too many for me.

Link Posted: 11/28/2007 3:29:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SevenPaul7:

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By SevenPaul7:
Having dealt with the offspring of a certain group out of southern Utah, (I'm trying to be delicate here) these people were not 'pleasing to the eye'. Not the kid's fault they were butt ugly, males and females.

And in every known situation, the young males were pushed out of the nest, leaving the young females for a bunch of old reprobates.


Some good points. I would like to bring some historical perspective into this.

Polygamy in Utah 150 years ago was very different than today for a number of reasons. First of all, there was no government welfare or entitlement system to exploit like there is today. So if a man was going to marry more than one woman he better be confident that he could provide for her.

Contrast that to how modern polygamist abuse the system: www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2142621

Secondly, polygamy (polygany) wasn't illegal 150 years ago. So the communities weren't living "underground" at the time and weren't havens for predators.

Contrast that to today where polygamy is illegal but for years law enforcement hasn't wanted to prosecute it or even touch the issue if they can possibly avoid it. The result is that these modern polygamist communities operate largely under the radar and are havens for people who prey on women and children.


Having pointed those things out, I'm not advocating that people choose a polygamist lifestyle. Just showing how it is logically incorrect to look at how most polygamist communities operate today and assume that it was lived the same way 150 years ago.


I'm not taking a potshot at the current LDS church, they are most certainly not polygamous. (The guys may wanna, but their wives would beat them senseless)

Just my observation the kids from these 'unions' were (indelicate here, bear with me) uuhhh plain? And kind of 'slow'?
And my brief peek into LDS history shows that some men were given 'duty' wives (older widders with kids) and occasionally a 'pleasure wife'.
Now a certain Bishop (during those early days) didn't like being rebuffed by a young lady he had an eye on, so he ordered her betrothed to be castrated. Not a daily occurrence, but one of the problems associated with having Power and a polygamous society.
I'm certainly not a prude, I think Nevada has the best approach to the world's oldest profession.
But from a personal observation, the physical effects (plain and dumb offspring) of polygamous societies outweighs any benefits. And I don't know why these children were like that, just it was very noticeable.



Stupid, slow parents are more likely to have stupid, slow children.

Polygamous marriage may not be the underlying culprit in the cross-section you dealt with, unless they were routinely inbreeding.

Certain sects do intentionally try to limit the educational opportunities for girls though, relegating them more to the household and mothering duties, as any other education for women is considered superfluous.

Link Posted: 11/28/2007 3:34:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SevenPaul7:

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By SevenPaul7:
Having dealt with the offspring of a certain group out of southern Utah, (I'm trying to be delicate here) these people were not 'pleasing to the eye'. Not the kid's fault they were butt ugly, males and females.

And in every known situation, the young males were pushed out of the nest, leaving the young females for a bunch of old reprobates.


Some good points. I would like to bring some historical perspective into this.

Polygamy in Utah 150 years ago was very different than today for a number of reasons. First of all, there was no government welfare or entitlement system to exploit like there is today. So if a man was going to marry more than one woman he better be confident that he could provide for her.

Contrast that to how modern polygamist abuse the system: www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2142621

Secondly, polygamy (polygany) wasn't illegal 150 years ago. So the communities weren't living "underground" at the time and weren't havens for predators.

Contrast that to today where polygamy is illegal but for years law enforcement hasn't wanted to prosecute it or even touch the issue if they can possibly avoid it. The result is that these modern polygamist communities operate largely under the radar and are havens for people who prey on women and children.


Having pointed those things out, I'm not advocating that people choose a polygamist lifestyle. Just showing how it is logically incorrect to look at how most polygamist communities operate today and assume that it was lived the same way 150 years ago.


I'm not taking a potshot at the current LDS church, they are most certainly not polygamous. (The guys may wanna, but their wives would beat them senseless)

Just my observation the kids from these 'unions' were (indelicate here, bear with me) uuhhh plain? And kind of 'slow'?
And my brief peek into LDS history shows that some men were given 'duty' wives (older widders with kids) and occasionally a 'pleasure wife'.
Now a certain Bishop (during those early days) didn't like being rebuffed by a young lady he had an eye on, so he ordered her betrothed to be castrated. Not a daily occurrence, but one of the problems associated with having Power and a polygamous society.
I'm certainly not a prude, I think Nevada has the best approach to the world's oldest profession.
But from a personal observation, the physical effects (plain and dumb offspring) of polygamous societies outweighs any benefits. And I don't know why these children were like that, just it was very noticeable.


Do you have a reference to the source of this story, or is this a "I heard this thing once" type of legend?

Just wondering if this is documented history or something else.

I have an idea...
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:33:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ElevenO:
Well, I would define "true polygamy" as being polygyny (which, as already stated in this thread, is one man married to two or more women at the same time) and geniune polygyny would, in fact, benefit society.


True polygamy is multiple wives and multiple husbands as you stated.



Allow me to explain.

First of all, if modern society accepted polygyny (as opposed to polyandry or run-of-the-mill swinging), it would help society as a whole because it would remove (for the most part) one of the primary causes of divorce: adulterous affairs. Why sneak around and have an adulterous affair when society accepts open and honest polygyny? If a man desires a new wife (for whatever reason) but doesn't desire to divorce his present wife then he should be free to do so (but it shouldn't be forced on anyone----ESPECIALLY his current wife----as it should be completely consensual between all parties ) .


All that sounds great for the man. Why aren't you being fair and considering the benefits of polyandry in certian circumstances?

And you're assuming that only men have adulterous affairs.


Polygyny would also strengthen society because it would encourage and develop large strong families which would develop strong bonds between all family members. Polygynous families would have a father present and they would have at least 2 mothers as well. These families would also have numerous children who would (again, for the most part) develop strong ties with each other in much the same way monogamous families do today. This, in turn, would naturally lead to the development of a stronger nation.


What if that one father had to travel for his job? Wouldn't polygamy, multiple husbands and wives be better?


It would also help economically because more than two paychecks can be included and accounted for in the overall family budget plus it would allow for one of the mothers to stay at home and care for the children if she desired to do so. Let's say, for example, a man is married to 3 women. The man could be the primary bread winner while wife #1 and #2 could (if they desired to) seek full time careers while wife #3 (again, if she desired to) could stay at home and take care of the house and the children. Plus, with 3 wives, no one wife would be forced to care for the house all by herself as she would have additional help that would come via the other wives as well as some of the older children who could be given the responsibility to help assist around the home (by assisting with the cooking and laundry, for example).

The above would all be true (90+ percent of the time) in genuine polygynous families because the whole point of polygyny is to be involved in committed relationships. If being involved in multiple committed relationships (at the same time) isn't desired then why get involved in polygyny in the first place? People who don't desire that kind of relationship will, naturally, avoid polygynous relationships. Those who do get involved in polygynous relationships will be able to do so with full knowledge of what will be expected of them (by society, as a whole). Obviously, strong commitment to (and from) all involved parties will be the primary societal expectation. Those who are willing to give that simultaneous commitment (to their several marriage partners and the children which come from them) may be attracted to polygyny whereas those who don't desire polygyny (and the committment it would require) would, naturally, avoid it.

Women, as a whole, would benefit from polygyny because they would be free to seek out and marry men who have already proven to be successful husbands and fathers rather than being forced to basically except the also-rans that monogamy only societies force them to except currently. Men would have to work harder in courting a wife because "the guy across the street" is no longer "off the market" simply because he already has one wife. This, in the end, benefits women because they would be free to seek out and marry the cream of the crop. In a polygynous society, no woman would be forced into lifelong singlehood because "the guy across the street" or "the guy at work" already has a wife. Now, he could two, three, four or as many wives as he is willing (or able) to support.


FYI: I am currently a southern baptist and not a mormon (and never have been a mormon) and I am coming at this issue from the perspective of a person who was raised as a lifelong southern baptist (despite the fact that most main line denominations---including the SBC---currently reject all forms of polygamy). The reason I mention this is because, inevitably, mormonism (in particular) and religion (in general) and many of their related precepts and excepted practices (of christianity, as a general rule) are introduced into the polygamy debate. So, for the sake of full disclosure, I wanted to include the perspective of which I was coming from in the hope that I could answer that question before (or if) it arose in this thread.


Thanks for taking the time to provide such a lengthy and articulate response, but don't you think you have a little bias being a man? Don't you think a womans perspective would be that multiple husbands would be okay but not multiple wives?

Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:35:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DrunkDucky:
Um...STDs?


That's free love hippie style. ...or just adulterous one night affairs. With polygamy, if everyone is clean, then no worries.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:37:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:
I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books.

Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands).

Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.



Women which live together end up having their periods get synchronized. You are with a group of women experiencing PMS all at the same time. You do the math. That's the grim reality. You'd be the ping-pong ball on the ping-pong table from hell.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:37:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nate1865:
Short term fun traded for long term destruction.


If you're approaching the subject from the idea of having fun, then yes, you will have long term destruction. The idea here isn't about having fun but rethinking the whole monogamy thing.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:40:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By THOLL223:

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By F22_RaptoR:
Im sorry, but you would be okay with another man fucking your wife/SO/PERSON YOU SUPPOSEDLY LOVE in the ass?


Multiple "partners" in a relationship tends to turn them into "objects".


Where did you read into my original post that anal sex was involved?

...and a lot of you are forgetting about the fact there are multiple husbands and not just multiple wives so there's plenty of sharing in the hen pecking.


Yeah that usually only occurs before the wedding, not after!


Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:40:19 PM EDT
The only way it would work if they lived in separate houses. After getting bitched at in the kitchen, you'd retrreat to the den and get bitched at in the den, then go outside and get bitched at outside. Pretty soon, you'd be expecting to see Sebastian Cabot in a white devil suit.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:41:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
Pro: sex with lots of wimmnz is hawt. Plus, they can't cut you off as a power play, they must compete for your favor.

Con: If I happen to lose out and not get a woman because you have 12, I'm coming to kill you and take yours. Nothing personal, this is just what happens in every polygamous society. See, e.g., the last 10,000 years of Middle East history.



Perfect description.

Thread over.

/thread
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:43:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Well look who it is...

Yeah, where the hell have you been, anyway?

No shit. I almost fell out when I saw you post in the other thread, and now I see you in two threads in two days.


I don't recognize you behind that mask. Name change?
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:49:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By F22_RaptoR:
Im sorry, but you would be okay with another man fucking your wife/SO/PERSON YOU SUPPOSEDLY LOVE in the ass?


Multiple "partners" in a relationship tends to turn them into "objects".


Where did you read into my original post that anal sex was involved?

Uhh I think that was implied - you're "Married" so the adults are going to play like adults..



...and a lot of you are forgetting about the fact there are multiple husbands and not just multiple wives so there's plenty of sharing in the hen pecking.

What happend when you and one of the other husband's want to take the same woman to bed that night?

Are you going to duel with him for the right to mate with that woman?

How is the other woman/women going to feel that you both preffered the red hed to her...

Finally what happens when the other husband decides he wants to stick it YOUR pooper and post pix?

Sounds like all kinds of trailer park trouble to me.


Sounds like one man would be too immature to even be considered by the existing husbands and wives to be brought into the marriage to me.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:55:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Sweep:
I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books.

Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands).

Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.



Women which live together end up having their periods get synchronized. You are with a group of women experiencing PMS all at the same time. You do the math. That's the grim reality. You'd be the ping-pong ball on the ping-pong table from hell.


In all the relationships I've ever been in, I'v only truly had one woman that got bitchy when she was on her period. Some would get irritable but wouldn't ever direct it at me. I always made sure I either kept my distance and didn't annoy them and was always understanding and they in turn never got bitchy with me.

...therefor I see this as a mute argument.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:58:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The only way it would work if they lived in separate houses. After getting bitched at in the kitchen, you'd retrreat to the den and get bitched at in the den, then go outside and get bitched at outside. Pretty soon, you'd be expecting to see Sebastian Cabot in a white devil suit.


Dude, you have some issues with women or what? ...or do you have the whole subscription?
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 4:58:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Well look who it is...

Yeah, where the hell have you been, anyway?

No shit. I almost fell out when I saw you post in the other thread, and now I see you in two threads in two days.

I don't recognize you behind that mask. Name change?

Nope; just used to you posting more in the past. Exhanged an email or two back in the day, but that's about it.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 5:00:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Sweep:
I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books.

Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands).

Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.



Women which live together end up having their periods get synchronized. You are with a group of women experiencing PMS all at the same time. You do the math. That's the grim reality. You'd be the ping-pong ball on the ping-pong table from hell.


In all the relationships I've ever been in, I'v only truly had one woman that got bitchy when she was on her period. Some would get irritable but wouldn't ever direct it at me. I always made sure I either kept my distance and didn't annoy them and was always understanding and they in turn never got bitchy with me.

...therefor I see this as a mute argument.


I do not think your experience is valid. When the circulation is cut off slightly on their third, left finger, normally by what is known as a wedding ring, the PMS experience is tremendously amplified.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 5:12:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By ElevenO:
Well, I would define "true polygamy" as being polygyny (which, as already stated in this thread, is one man married to two or more women at the same time) and geniune polygyny would, in fact, benefit society.


True polygamy is multiple wives and multiple husbands as you stated.



Allow me to explain.

First of all, if modern society accepted polygyny (as opposed to polyandry or run-of-the-mill swinging), it would help society as a whole because it would remove (for the most part) one of the primary causes of divorce: adulterous affairs. Why sneak around and have an adulterous affair when society accepts open and honest polygyny? If a man desires a new wife (for whatever reason) but doesn't desire to divorce his present wife then he should be free to do so (but it shouldn't be forced on anyone----ESPECIALLY his current wife----as it should be completely consensual between all parties ) .


All that sounds great for the man. Why aren't you being fair and considering the benefits of polyandry in certian circumstances?

And you're assuming that only men have adulterous affairs.


Polygyny would also strengthen society because it would encourage and develop large strong families which would develop strong bonds between all family members. Polygynous families would have a father present and they would have at least 2 mothers as well. These families would also have numerous children who would (again, for the most part) develop strong ties with each other in much the same way monogamous families do today. This, in turn, would naturally lead to the development of a stronger nation.


What if that one father had to travel for his job? Wouldn't polygamy, multiple husbands and wives be better?


It would also help economically because more than two paychecks can be included and accounted for in the overall family budget plus it would allow for one of the mothers to stay at home and care for the children if she desired to do so. Let's say, for example, a man is married to 3 women. The man could be the primary bread winner while wife #1 and #2 could (if they desired to) seek full time careers while wife #3 (again, if she desired to) could stay at home and take care of the house and the children. Plus, with 3 wives, no one wife would be forced to care for the house all by herself as she would have additional help that would come via the other wives as well as some of the older children who could be given the responsibility to help assist around the home (by assisting with the cooking and laundry, for example).

The above would all be true (90+ percent of the time) in genuine polygynous families because the whole point of polygyny is to be involved in committed relationships. If being involved in multiple committed relationships (at the same time) isn't desired then why get involved in polygyny in the first place? People who don't desire that kind of relationship will, naturally, avoid polygynous relationships. Those who do get involved in polygynous relationships will be able to do so with full knowledge of what will be expected of them (by society, as a whole). Obviously, strong commitment to (and from) all involved parties will be the primary societal expectation. Those who are willing to give that simultaneous commitment (to their several marriage partners and the children which come from them) may be attracted to polygyny whereas those who don't desire polygyny (and the committment it would require) would, naturally, avoid it.

Women, as a whole, would benefit from polygyny because they would be free to seek out and marry men who have already proven to be successful husbands and fathers rather than being forced to basically except the also-rans that monogamy only societies force them to except currently. Men would have to work harder in courting a wife because "the guy across the street" is no longer "off the market" simply because he already has one wife. This, in the end, benefits women because they would be free to seek out and marry the cream of the crop. In a polygynous society, no woman would be forced into lifelong singlehood because "the guy across the street" or "the guy at work" already has a wife. Now, he could two, three, four or as many wives as he is willing (or able) to support.


FYI: I am currently a southern baptist and not a mormon (and never have been a mormon) and I am coming at this issue from the perspective of a person who was raised as a lifelong southern baptist (despite the fact that most main line denominations---including the SBC---currently reject all forms of polygamy). The reason I mention this is because, inevitably, mormonism (in particular) and religion (in general) and many of their related precepts and excepted practices (of christianity, as a general rule) are introduced into the polygamy debate. So, for the sake of full disclosure, I wanted to include the perspective of which I was coming from in the hope that I could answer that question before (or if) it arose in this thread.


Thanks for taking the time to provide such a lengthy and articulate response, but don't you think you have a little bias being a man? Don't you think a womans perspective would be that multiple husbands would be okay but not multiple wives?





Polyandry (one woman with several husbands) and multiple wives with multiple husbands is a recipe for societal disaster. As a general rule, most men would refuse to take care of the children that have been fathered by another man. Plus, polyandry would make it even more difficult on single women because it would allow all currently married women to horde all of the good men while leaving the single women to be stuck in a single lifestyle for the rest of their lives. Besides, one women isn't going to be able to satisfy (sexually or otherwise) multiple men at the same time and that would cause the other husbands to compete against each other and that would, ultimately, damage the entire fabric/unity/cohesiveness of their "family". Quite simply, polyandry would rip a family (and, consequently, a whole nation) apart rather than bring it together. If that sounds biased, unfair, or to paternal for some then that's to bad. It may be unfair but it's also realistic. POLYGYNY (which, again, is one man married to multiple wives) is THE ONLY FORM of polygamy which is (or can be) beneficial to society at large. All other forms of polygamy are self-destructive and are counter productive to developing (or maintaining) a healthy society (which, in turn, leads to a healthy nation as a whole).
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 6:11:20 PM EDT
http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/M/ea_161853mormon_c.htm

Here is one link to Bishop Snowe's little re-education program
Obviously, this event was a long time ago. Apparently B. Young approved of putting this whippersnapper in his place.
Again, not taking pot shots, in fact as a history buff, I'm a little disappointed the "Mormon Battalion" website is not being kept up to date.
I'm interested in a settlement they had where the Santa Fe Trail (aka: the Mormon Trail) hit the Mojave River.
I bring this up as an illustration of the problems associated with old men with power wanting young pie.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 6:30:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:

....

Polygamy

....




If the man of the house can provide for multiple wives, polygamy should be allowed.

As for me, I only need 1 wife and ( at least three fine women on the side) just kidding on that last part....



:}

Link Posted: 11/28/2007 7:04:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By nate1865:
Short term fun traded for long term destruction.


If you're approaching the subject from the idea of having fun, then yes, you will have long term destruction. The idea here isn't about having fun but rethinking the whole monogamy thing.


I'm just saying it may sound like a good idea and be fun for a while (the "upside"), but ultimately it will only end up badly for one or more people. So, really, I would argue there is no upside.

Link Posted: 11/28/2007 7:09:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ElevenO:
u] POLYGYNY (which, again, is one man married to multiple wives) is THE ONLY FORM of polygamy which is (or can be) beneficial to society at large. All other forms of polygamy are self-destructive and are counter productive to developing (or maintaining) a healthy society (which, in turn, leads to a healthy nation as a whole).


I disagree. Every polygynous example I've ever seen has been degrading to women. Think of the instances mentiond in the Bible, the Mormon church, and even modern Islam. It never works out well except for one happy guy who thinks he has it made. Women are turned into property and sexual objects.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 7:47:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:
True polygamy could would have to be at least two husbands and two wives or any variation of those four or more.


I can see it now. The other dude would be in the bedroom with both women and I would be stuck looking at porn on the computer.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 8:23:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2007 8:24:19 PM EDT by ElevenO]

Originally Posted By nate1865:

Originally Posted By ElevenO:
u] POLYGYNY (which, again, is one man married to multiple wives) is THE ONLY FORM of polygamy which is (or can be) beneficial to society at large. All other forms of polygamy are self-destructive and are counter productive to developing (or maintaining) a healthy society (which, in turn, leads to a healthy nation as a whole).


I disagree. Every polygynous example I've ever seen has been degrading to women. Think of the instances mentiond in the Bible, the Mormon church, and even modern Islam. It never works out well except for one happy guy who thinks he has it made. Women are turned into property and sexual objects.




I'm not concerned with mormonism or islam simply because I'm neither a mormon nor a muslim. As far as biblical stories are concerned, I challenge you (or anyone else, for that matter) to name a biblical story where the women in the marriage suffered and were degraded simply due to a polygynous relationship (rather than other factors like disobedience or lack of faith, etc, etc) .Good luck.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 8:32:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

But I realize you probably don't know anything about Mormons other than lurid, unsubstantiated tales so I'll let it go at that.


Yeah and Warren Jefferies was/is completely unsubstantiated and nothing more than another tale of Mormons gone rogue.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 9:24:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2007 9:30:27 PM EDT by winxlite]

Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By nate1865:

Originally Posted By ElevenO:
u] POLYGYNY (which, again, is one man married to multiple wives) is THE ONLY FORM of polygamy which is (or can be) beneficial to society at large. All other forms of polygamy are self-destructive and are counter productive to developing (or maintaining) a healthy society (which, in turn, leads to a healthy nation as a whole).


I disagree. Every polygynous example I've ever seen has been degrading to women. Think of the instances mentiond in the Bible, the Mormon church, and even modern Islam. It never works out well except for one happy guy who thinks he has it made. Women are turned into property and sexual objects.


I'm not concerned with mormonism or islam simply because I'm neither a mormon nor a muslim. As far as biblical stories are concerned, I challenge you (or anyone else, for that matter) to name a biblical story where the women in the marriage suffered and were degraded simply due to a polygynous relationship (rather than other factors like disobedience or lack of faith, etc, etc) .Good luck.



Abramam-Sahrah-Haggar{concubine} A disagreement led to Haggar and her son to be cast out of the family, theoretically being used as a point of discord between the Jews,and Muslims.

Jacob-Rachel-Leah Favoratism, jelously and feelings of neglect, likely leading to the selling of one brother into slavery.

David and Solamon Both had multiple wives, this led to disputes within the family and led to civil wars within the nation of Israel.

Other than the care of the widows name one benneficial aspect of polygamy stated in the bible.

Sorry for spelling mistakes

Link Posted: 11/28/2007 9:25:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:
I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books.

Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands).

Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.



True polygamy in the long run is impossible on a large scale. Amongst a pair of couples, perhaps. But there's a reason that you started out as couples and not as a foursome, or more. There will always be someone with an issue.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 10:02:22 PM EDT
My family were polygamists. It was an awful deal all around.

I live near the largest polygamist community in the US. It is still an awful deal.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 10:06:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By brasidas:
My family were polygamists. It was an awful deal all around.

I live near the largest polygamist community in the US. It is still an awful deal.


And there you have it straight from a person who has been there and still is there. Thank you for your words.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 10:12:02 PM EDT
If TRUE Polygamy was being practiced properly there would be less single mothers raising kids on their own. That is orginally what it was meant for in the first place to provide for the mothers and kids that didn't have a father.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 10:37:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:
I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books.

Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands).

Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.



Not surprising. That idea is straight out of Plato and Heinlein loved Greek thought. He basically wanted to re-create Sparta as his ideal culture.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 11:05:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTwin60:

Originally Posted By brasidas:
My family were polygamists. It was an awful deal all around.

I live near the largest polygamist community in the US. It is still an awful deal.

And there you have it straight from a person who has been there and still is there. Thank you for your words.

A person who is providing reference (and excellent reference, at that) for a "type" of polygamy the OP wasn't initially talking about until his original point had been side-tracked so much that he could no longer avoid it.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 12:42:45 AM EDT
Sounds like hippy shit to me.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 1:37:56 AM EDT
essentially its just communal living then I think its a great idea given the resources and space. Granted its sort of communistic but for large expensive purchases along with food and product production it makes sense. Why spend 100k on farm equipment if you could share the load with say a group of 4 couples. You could live in the same dwelling or separate. people have designated duties. One in charge of livestock the other produce ect... Now the sex part that everyone is so concerned with, its pretty much just swinging with a regular group of people. If everyone is comfortable and compatible in different ways than swapping and mutual sex just increase the pleasure for all.
Yeah I guess it does sound kinda hippy but it doesn't sound that bad to me have the resources to support a large compound do as you please and hang out with a close group of "friends" all the time. Think of the class 3 buying power
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 2:25:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By moetank:
essentially its just communal living then I think its a great idea given the resources and space. Granted its sort of communistic but for large expensive purchases along with food and product production it makes sense. Why spend 100k on farm equipment if you could share the load with say a group of 4 couples. You could live in the same dwelling or separate. people have designated duties. One in charge of livestock the other produce ect... Now the sex part that everyone is so concerned with, its pretty much just swinging with a regular group of people. If everyone is comfortable and compatible in different ways than swapping and mutual sex just increase the pleasure for all.
Yeah I guess it does sound kinda hippy but it doesn't sound that bad to me have the resources to support a large compound do as you please and hang out with a close group of "friends" all the time. Think of the class 3 buying power


The one thing that it would not be, is open to any one that just wlaked up and said, "Hey, I want in on this." In Heinlein's book, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, everyone else voted on whp could join the marraige and only person could say no to prevent it. And you had to be invited to join. No communism crap.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 2:45:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By moetank:
essentially its just communal living then I think its a great idea given the resources and space. Granted its sort of communistic but for large expensive purchases along with food and product production it makes sense. Why spend 100k on farm equipment if you could share the load with say a group of 4 couples. You could live in the same dwelling or separate. people have designated duties. One in charge of livestock the other produce ect... Now the sex part that everyone is so concerned with, its pretty much just swinging with a regular group of people. If everyone is comfortable and compatible in different ways than swapping and mutual sex just increase the pleasure for all.
Yeah I guess it does sound kinda hippy but it doesn't sound that bad to me have the resources to support a large compound do as you please and hang out with a close group of "friends" all the time. Think of the class 3 buying power


The one thing that it would not be, is open to any one that just wlaked up and said, "Hey, I want in on this." In Heinlein's book, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, everyone else voted on whp could join the marraige and only person could say no to prevent it. And you had to be invited to join. No communism crap.


Thats pretty much what I'm saying the only things thats communistic is the sharing of goods, but everybody would have to be totally comfortable with each individual. So yeah if one person didnt was against it then no new person.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 2:51:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By walttx:

How would it benfit society ?


Demographically, there are several million more adult women than men in this country. If we started making man/woman pairs, we'd end up with those left over women whose only choices would be perpetual singleness, or if they wanted an intimate relationship, adultery or lesbianism.


dont you think we have enough messed up kids, with all of the divorce in our society.


This presumes that the outcome would be negative. That's an assumption. My kids are great and I've been married for 20 years.

Personally, I love being married, and to me the opportunity to take a second wife would be more of a good thing.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 5:33:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By winxlite:
Abramam-Sahrah-Haggar{concubine} A disagreement led to Haggar and her son to be cast out of the family, theoretically being used as a point of discord between the Jews,and Muslims.

Jacob-Rachel-Leah Favoratism, jelously and feelings of neglect, likely leading to the selling of one brother into slavery.

David and Solamon Both had multiple wives, this led to disputes within the family and led to civil wars within the nation of Israel.

Other than the care of the widows name one benneficial aspect of polygamy stated in the bible.

Sorry for spelling mistakes



FAIL.



1) The issue with hagar and abraham was due to abrahams lack of faith in God that He would fulfill his promise (for the child who would ultimately become known as issac) through sarah. Neither hagar nor abraham was ever condemned or criticized in scripture for being involved in a polygynous relationship with each other.


Keep in mind, please, that God could have prevented the relationship between abraham and hagar if He had wanted to in much the same way he did in the stories told in Genesis 12:10-20 and again in Genesis 20:1-18. So, not only was abraham never condemed for any of his polygynous relationships, he wasn't prevented from getting involved in them in the first place.



2) Somehow polygyny as a marriage practice is, by default, evil and wrong because jacobs sons were jealous of their youngest brother? Is that what you are trying to say? Remember, my challenge to you earlier in this thread was to prove---through any biblical story of your choice---that polygyny----as a marriage practice----was and is----by default---degrading to women. So far, you have failed in meeting that challenge.


In much the same way as with abraham, God chose not to prevent the (tricked) marriage of jacob with leah nor did he prevent the eventual marriage between jacob and rachel. Also, jacob was never stopped from having a relationship with not only leah and rachel but their mistresses as well. Jacob, essentially, had 4 wives ( 2 wives plus 2 concubines) and the 12 sons of israel were born through these 4 wives. There's no biblical record that God even attempted to stop any of these relationships much less condemned jacob (or any of his wives) for participating in it. If polygyny was somehow--- again, by default---degrading and bad for women then why weren't these relationships stopped from developing? If polygyny is so bad then how do you reconcile your anti-polygynous beliefs with the entire book of esther where God used a jewish girl to become the wife, queen, and harem member of a foreign pagan king? God used that polygynous relationship to influence that king to save all of the jewish people who were in captivity in that country, and were under the threat of annihilation, at that particular time. Esther was never criticized for this relationship nor was her husband who was the king at the time.



3A) David committed adultry. Had bathsheba not been married then there would not have been a problem. He was never criticized or punished for any of his other polygynous relationships and he had numerous wives and concubines. In the new testament david was clalled a "man after Gods own heart". His polygyny didn't change or stain any of that. Davids problem was adultry. Not polygyny. Please read the story where nathan confronted david for his sin with bathsheba (in 2 Samuel 12:1-15) Read the old testament parable that nathan told david. Who represented the rich neighbor? The poor neighbor? Who (and what) represented the lambs? If polygyny is wrong and degrading then why was the rich man condemned only for his theft but not for having so many lambs at the same time?


3B) Solomon, quite frankly, had more women then he could properly care for. If my memory serves me correctly, I recall he had 300 wives and 700 concubines. That sounds a little greedy to me but perhaps I'm wrong.

Solomon was also wrong in that he chose to get involved with women who were pagans and practiced pagan rituals.

Even with solomons problems, you still have failed to prove that polygyny is---by default----a bad and degrading practice to women.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 6:14:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/29/2007 6:45:52 AM EDT by wise_jake]

Originally Posted By moetank:

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By moetank:
essentially its just communal living then I think its a great idea given the resources and space. Granted its sort of communistic but for large expensive purchases along with food and product production it makes sense. Why spend 100k on farm equipment if you could share the load with say a group of 4 couples. You could live in the same dwelling or separate. people have designated duties. One in charge of livestock the other produce ect... Now the sex part that everyone is so concerned with, its pretty much just swinging with a regular group of people. If everyone is comfortable and compatible in different ways than swapping and mutual sex just increase the pleasure for all.

Yeah I guess it does sound kinda hippy but it doesn't sound that bad to me have the resources to support a large compound do as you please and hang out with a close group of "friends" all the time. Think of the class 3 buying power

The one thing that it would not be, is open to any one that just wlaked up and said, "Hey, I want in on this." In Heinlein's book, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, everyone else voted on whp could join the marraige and only person could say no to prevent it. And you had to be invited to join. No communism crap.

Thats pretty much what I'm saying the only things thats communistic is the sharing of goods, but everybody would have to be totally comfortable with each individual. So yeah if one person didnt was against it then no new person.

Yes, and it's actually not communistic because it's not the gov't mandating this.

It's freedom of contract with people deciding to live their lives in a manner of their choosing.

And the rest of the stuff you were talking about is basically just division of labor,* pooling of resources,** and efficient utilization of scarce resources.***

* who here wouldn't LOVE to have a wife who's into reloading?

** group buys, anyone?

*** I don't see anyone making fun of the Greatest Generation folks who didn't grumble about the rationing during WWII.... even though it was the gov't coordinating (AND mandating) it.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 6:30:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:
I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books.

Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands).

Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.



Why have 90% of the replies missed this?

With human nature, there's no way it's gonna work. (Jealousy, insecurity, resentment, etc). That's why it's some pipe dream in science fiction and not practiced in reality.

So you're a couple, and need to be voted in. Great. What happens when your wife thinks you prefer another mate over you? Or vice versa?

What about offspring? Are sons and daughters allowed to stay? Grandchildren? Who's gonna take care of them? Who in the hell is the father? Not much long term thinking here.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 6:41:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTwin60:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

But I realize you probably don't know anything about Mormons other than lurid, unsubstantiated tales so I'll let it go at that.


Yeah and Warren Jefferies was/is completely unsubstantiated and nothing more than another tale of Mormons gone rogue.


I wasn't aware that Jeffs was ever LDS. You seem to be confusing two religions.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 6:42:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/29/2007 6:45:25 AM EDT by wise_jake]

Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By winxlite:
<snip>

<snip>

Great points, ElevenO.

In a lot of ways, it's similar to the beliefs that masturbation is somehow inherently bad/wrong/evil because of what happened with Onan.

It wasn't the act itself that was [inherently] wrong; it was the motivation behind it.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 6:46:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SevenPaul7:
http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/M/ea_161853mormon_c.htm

Here is one link to Bishop Snowe's little re-education program
Obviously, this event was a long time ago. Apparently B. Young approved of putting this whippersnapper in his place.
Again, not taking pot shots, in fact as a history buff, I'm a little disappointed the "Mormon Battalion" website is not being kept up to date.
I'm interested in a settlement they had where the Santa Fe Trail (aka: the Mormon Trail) hit the Mojave River.
I bring this up as an illustration of the problems associated with old men with power wanting young pie.


You call that a reliable source. Author is "anonymous"? Multiple "stories", but no footnotes?

Give me a break.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 7:17:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gator:


Why have 90% of the replies missed this?

With human nature, there's no way it's gonna work. (Jealousy, insecurity, resentment, etc). That's why it's some pipe dream in science fiction and not practiced in reality.

So you're a couple, and need to be voted in. Great. What happens when your wife thinks you prefer another mate over you? Or vice versa?

What about offspring? Are sons and daughters allowed to stay? Grandchildren? Who's gonna take care of them? Who in the hell is the father? Not much long term thinking here.


The above quoted red portion is the precise reason why I have advocated for polygyny and only polygyny. Polyamory and polyadry just invite chaos and family instability. Polygyny, if practiced correctly, can actually make a family not only larger but stronger, as well. However, as with most things, it takes 100%, no holds barred, commitment from ALL parties involved to actually make it work like it's supposed to. Therein lies the point where the rubber hits the road----in a very hard and unforgiving way. I'm not sure most people (including myself) are able to give that kind of commitment to that many people at one time.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 7:21:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 7:25:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/29/2007 7:26:15 AM EDT by Shane333]

Originally Posted By SevenPaul7:
http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/M/ea_161853mormon_c.htm

Here is one link to Bishop Snowe's little re-education program
Obviously, this event was a long time ago. Apparently B. Young approved of putting this whippersnapper in his place.
Again, not taking pot shots, in fact as a history buff, I'm a little disappointed the "Mormon Battalion" website is not being kept up to date.
I'm interested in a settlement they had where the Santa Fe Trail (aka: the Mormon Trail) hit the Mojave River.
I bring this up as an illustration of the problems associated with old men with power wanting young pie.


Found it interesting looking into that story how shaky the citations are. It seems that a lot of that story is based off of 2nd or even 3rd hand accounts from John Lee (who had no personal knowledge of the matter and who was also desperately trying to get attention away from the murder he helped orchestrate at Mountain Meadows) or Quinn. There's also a reference to Wilford Woodruff's diaries, but when I search for any link showing a scan of the diary page none of the sites citing it can provide one. In fact, I can't find any links anywhere showing what was actually printed by Woodruff on those pages of his diary. That's odd because scans of certain other pages of his diaries are frequently available when people cite them.

In short, the story is on shaky ground. Not saying that a castration didn't happen, but reliable accounts on the matter seem very hard to find and the circumstances of the situation are not clear. The accusations tying the matter to polygany seem to be based on heresay.
Link Posted: 11/29/2007 7:37:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:
I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books.

Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands).

Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.





Link Posted: 11/29/2007 8:02:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/29/2007 8:04:34 AM EDT by MrsDrFrige]

Originally Posted By ElevenO:

Originally Posted By winxlite:
Abramam-Sahrah-Haggar{concubine} A disagreement led to Haggar and her son to be cast out of the family, theoretically being used as a point of discord between the Jews,and Muslims.

Jacob-Rachel-Leah Favoratism, jelously and feelings of neglect, likely leading to the selling of one brother into slavery.

David and Solamon Both had multiple wives, this led to disputes within the family and led to civil wars within the nation of Israel.

Other than the care of the widows name one benneficial aspect of polygamy stated in the bible.

Sorry for spelling mistakes



FAIL.



1) The issue with hagar and abraham was due to abrahams lack of faith in God that He would fulfill his promise (for the child who would ultimately become known as issac) through sarah. Neither hagar nor abraham was ever condemned or criticized in scripture for being involved in a polygynous relationship with each other.


Fail.....it was not Abram's lack of faith it was Sarai...she insisted he take Haggar to provide an heir....when Hagar supplied the Heir it was too much for Sarai to bare and her jealousy resulted in outcasting of Hagar....





Link Posted: 11/29/2007 8:11:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gator:

Originally Posted By Sweep:
I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books.

Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands).

Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.

Why have 90% of the replies missed this?

With human nature, there's no way it's gonna work. (Jealousy, insecurity, resentment, etc). That's why it's some pipe dream in science fiction and not practiced in reality.

So you're a couple, and need to be voted in. Great. What happens when your wife thinks you prefer another mate over you? Or vice versa?

What about offspring? Are sons and daughters allowed to stay? Grandchildren? Who's gonna take care of them? Who in the hell is the father? Not much long term thinking here.

This is why it's so important to have done the required reading.

"Let me 'splain --- No, there is too much. Let me sum up:"

Line Marriage

Hell of a way to escape the death tax.
Page / 4
Top Top