Polygamy

[Joe Wordsworth]

I've been watching CNN's coverage of this Texas polygamy thing. I'm trying to get my mind around the ideological landscape about it all.

Like, is there something harmful about polygamy--intrinsically? Or at what size does it become meaningless--if at all? And is there an age factor to consider? Education level? Etc.

I don't think there's an easy answer there. Five, isolated, uneducated 16 year-old girls being married to one adult male seems... a bit much. Then again, three folks of middle age?

I dunno.

I don't guess I can get behind any of it, really.

 

[shereads]

Personally, I wouldn't care how many people married each other/lived together or whatever, if there were informed consent on everyone's part. Informed consent by a young girl who's been kept ignorant of any other way of life, is not a credible possibility.

What's bothersome about Warren Jeffs' followers and their ilk is the coercion, which takes many forms.

Girls are discouraged from graduating high school, which makes it easier to keep them dependent on the community. Women are taught that a wife can't enter heaven without her husband's recommendation of her soul to God.

A few years ago, I read about the disappearance of a young woman who had left a fundamentalist Mormon community and threatened to prosecute her "husband" for rape. She simply vanished.

Being disappeared may be an extreme example of what can happen to recalcitrant brides. A more common punishment is being shunned, cut off from contact with parents, family, and the known world. Pretty traumatic stuff for a woman of any age to deal with, much less a teenager.

 

[Oblimo]

I find it hard to believe that a monogamous union (heterosexual or otherwise) is the only viable structure for a long-term relationship (considering it's lackluster success rate, at least ). At the same time, most historical instances of polygamy as a cultural institution coincide with a very lopsided balance of power between the sexes. Again, I suspect it's a correlation and not a causation, so I guess the question is what social dymanic has lead to the polygamous marriage in the first place.

 

[Lee Chambers]

Being disappeared may be an extreme example of what can happen to recalcitrant brides. A more common punishment is being shunned, cut off from contact with parents, family, and the known world. Pretty traumatic stuff for a woman of any age to deal with, much less a teenager.

For these cock-suckers, it's not that extreme. The local news interviewed a woman who was about thirty-five or forty and said that she had escaped when she was sixteen from the same fucking compound. She said that she ran for years, moving from place to place, because the men were trying to hunt her down so she wouldn't tell the secrets of that place.

Jesus fucking christ don't get me started on this fucking shit. I want to carpet bomb the whole god damned lot of them with fucking naplam. IT STICKS TO YOUR SKIN, YOU KNOW THAT FUCKERS!!!

ARRRRGH....this is why I hate religion. COCK SUCKERS.

 

[Oblimo]

I get the feeling you're holding back, Lee.

 

[Lee Chambers]

I get the feeling you're holding back, Lee.

This whole thing pisses me off for one fucking reason: because of what they're doing to children.

Rob may recall a conversation we had several months back over pedophiles. Simply put, we had to agree to disagree on what should be done with them because I told Rob he would never, EVER get a logical argument out of me over that particular topic. Why? Because I didn't fucking want to be logical about it.

I believe that children, more than anything, hold the hope of making the world a better place to live and when people do STUPID FUCKING SHIT like tell them their fucking souls will not go to heaven without some other MOTHER FUCKERS consent, it MAKES ME WANT TO FUCKING MURDER PEOPLE.

And what makes it worse is that this has been going on for GENERATIONS!!!

Lock those mother fuckers up, burn them to the fucking ground, salt the fucking earth upon which they died, and let every other mother fucking zealot quake with fear for their mother fucking souls.

(I know that, in this tirade, I sound very much like the very zealots I protest against. The irony is not lost on me. BURN THEM.)

 

[shereads]

You know what would be good right now?

Cupcakes. With pink icing, and candy sprinkles.

 

[Gizzmotick]

This whole thing pisses me off for one fucking reason: because of what they're doing to children.

Well said.

Present the options to kids, allow them to learn for themselves... but do not forcefeed anything. That's my opinion. The polygamists in Texas were doing nothing more than forcefeeding the will of the leader on all the kids there. That is what I find intolerable.

My parent (divorced family and all) tried to force religion on me... and for a while I thought I could tolerate it.... but then I decided that religion was not for me. At least my parent was willing to accept my decision. Although it has pretty much made me the outcast of my whole extended family because I have the balls to stand up in front of my whole family and say "No, I'm not going to church with y'all."

 

[Lee Chambers]

You know what would be good right now?

Cupcakes. With pink icing, and candy sprinkles.

Ooooo a distraction! Well played.

 

[Huckleman2000]

While I'll defer to others about the Texas case, I'd also recommend a book to Joe and others who are curious about what are now being called "polyamorous" relationships. It's The Ethical Slut, by Dossie Easton and Catherine A. Liszt. I've found it to be a fascinating revelation, especially since I've talked to people (some here, in fact) about actually living in situations encompassed under that 'lifestyle.'

Shereads is right; the most salient difference between the Texas case and the relationships described in the book is the issue of informed consent. What I've learned both from the book and from talking to people is that a poly relationship requires a LOT of informing and consenting. Lots of communication is key; and oddly enough, having a lot of open discussion about each others' sexual and relationship needs happens to enhance people's 'primary' relationship a lot. The sex is like sprinkles on the cupcake.

 

[R. Richard]

OK, the matter of the women involved in the kind of polygyny we are discussing has been pretty thoroughly discussed.

Now, let's look at the young men in such a situation.

There are about the same number of boys and girls born. Thus, if an 'elder' has four wives, there are three young boys who don't have a wife and can never have a wife. While it will be argued, that they can all marry the same rich woman in a polyandry relationship, it just does not happen. Instead, the young boys are taken far away from the polygyny community and dumped.

At least the young women have a suport network, [usually welfare.] However, the young boys are left to sink or swim with no real skills to support themselves.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

I've been watching CNN's coverage of this Texas polygamy thing. I'm trying to get my mind around the ideological landscape about it all.

Like, is there something harmful about polygamy--intrinsically? Or at what size does it become meaningless--if at all? And is there an age factor to consider? Education level? Etc.

I don't think there's an easy answer there. Five, isolated, uneducated 16 year-old girls being married to one adult male seems... a bit much. Then again, three folks of middle age?

I dunno.

I don't guess I can get behind any of it, really.

There's an interesting thread about it on the GB.

Oh, and let me make one thing clear here:

There is a difference between a brainwashed community of women that includes underage girls forced to have sex with their fathers or father figures, and successful polygamist communities. There is no exception, and no damned excuses for girls and women of any age to be threatened, forced, brainwashed, coerced, etc.

There ARE women who have made an informed choice about polygamy. The Texas case wasn't one of those times.

 

[Pure]

i agree with r richard on this. the community is not very healthy in that teen males have to be routinely exiled so that the king bee can have lots of women.

while in theory polygamy or polygyny are defensible*, the actual arrangements don't measure up (as affirming the worth of both sexes, and their freedom of choice). in texas, the folks interviewed sound rather brainwashed.

--
*if chosen by adults who have freedom, and haven't been insulated and brainwashed.

 

[Wyldfire]

I'm in a polyamourous relationship and the thing in Texas pisses me off! I live with my husband and our "wife". The wife being in quotes only because it is a religeous marriage and not a legal one.

Several points on this pisses me off. One. They are brainwashing their children so one of the "Old Boys'"club can have their daughters.

Two. The boys get fucked over and thrown out into a society they don't understand. What does that do to them?

Three. That gene pool is getting weaker and weaker. There isn't any expansion of the gene pool and it will eventually make any "marriage" in that community incest. They will be producing children in large quantities with birth defects in shorter order than they think.

Do I really need to go on?

 

[S-Des]

ARRRRGH....this is why I hate religion. COCK SUCKERS.

This has nothing more to do with mainstream religion than the zealots who put a bomb on a girl with down syndrome (so they could kill other women and children) has to do with Muslims, or pedophiles has to do with homosexuals, or the kook from the Berklee city council who said the army was immoral because male soldiers rape women (and any female soldiers who join) has to do with Democrats. They are all just random examples of what can happen in extreme environments.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've been watching CNN's coverage of this Texas polygamy thing. I'm trying to get my mind around the ideological landscape about it all.

Like, is there something harmful about polygamy--intrinsically? Or at what size does it become meaningless--if at all? And is there an age factor to consider? Education level? Etc.

I don't think there's an easy answer there. Five, isolated, uneducated 16 year-old girls being married to one adult male seems... a bit much. Then again, three folks of middle age?

I dunno.

I don't guess I can get behind any of it, really.

Joe, i doubt there's any "ideological landscape" happening in Texas, really. It's about some men hanging on to the power.
Personally, I don't think there's anything harmful in polygamy, intrinsically, and i don't know what size would render it meaningless-- I'm sure there are meaningless sizes, though!

Three folk of middle age sounds just fine to me-- one isolated, uneducated 16 year old girl married to an adult (and middle aged) male seems a bit much.

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

I think that probablly the only form of polygamy that would be "acceptable" to me would be a relationship that can coexist in everyday life with the laws of this country.

Example, they have a house down the block, work and live with a normal community ect. When you tie it in with religion things get murky and it becomes a must instead of an option.

underage sex is wrong no matter how you slice it. The mothers are just as guilty as the fathers because they knew about it and supported it. Accessory to the crime. They should all go to prison.

 

[sweetness6280]

The distinction between what is happening in the religious sect here in Texas and polygamist unions between consenting adults has already been established. I won't touch on it any further.

Polygamy as a choice is not detrimental at all. In fact, somewhere between 70% and 80% of the world's societies accept the polygamous lifestyle. It requires a high level of trust and self-respect.

For some of my friends, it has been an extremely successful life choice, one union in particular. The husband works, as do two of the wives. One of the wives does not want to work; she wants to stay at home with the children. For this union, things work perfectly. One mother stays at home with all of the children, thus limiting the cost of child care for the family. The two wives who chose to work have excelled in their careers, in part because of the support of the wife who stays at home. Everyone is content in their chosen role. There is a high level of mutual respect and communication, not only between the partners, but also between the children and the parents.

Of course, not all polygamous unions are this successful, but then not all monogamous relationships are successful either. Individuals should have the freedom to choose the lifestyle that works for them.

 

[fifty5]

The distinction between what is happening in the religious sect here in Texas and polygamist unions between consenting adults has already been established. I won't touch on it any further.

Polygamy as a choice is not detrimental at all. In fact, somewhere between 70% and 80% of the world's societies accept the polygamous lifestyle. It requires a high level of trust and self-respect.

For some of my friends, it has been an extremely successful life choice, one union in particular. The husband works, as do two of the wives. One of the wives does not want to work; she wants to stay at home with the children. For this union, things work perfectly. One mother stays at home with all of the children, thus limiting the cost of child care for the family. The two wives who chose to work have excelled in their careers, in part because of the support of the wife who stays at home. Everyone is content in their chosen role. There is a high level of mutual respect and communication, not only between the partners, but also between the children and the parents.

Of course, not all polygamous unions are this successful, but then not all monogamous relationships are successful either. Individuals should have the freedom to choose the lifestyle that works for them.

Right on, Sweetness. There are some general rules - Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal (though ask any serviceman for comments on the former), but as far as relationships go, if it's general, it's wrong. Only the individual case is important. Some monogamy is wrong, some same-sex, some poly. Others can be really, really good, while most are ... average.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Right on, Sweetness. There are some general rules - Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal (though ask any serviceman for comments on the former), but as far as relationships go, if it's general, it's wrong. Only the individual case is important. Some monogamy is wrong, some same-sex, some poly. Others can be really, really good, while most are ... average.

Besides, the correct translation out of the Bronze Age Hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder" The ancient Israelites were bang along side killing infidels. Does this sound familiar?

 

[Oblimo]

Besides, the correct translation out of the Bronze Age Hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder" The ancient Israelites were bang along side killing infidels. Does this sound familiar?

Actually, we don't know what the "correct" translation of retzach is in the context of the Torah. IIRC. the main argument for "murder instead of kill" is the fact that a different word is sometimes used when the slaying being described is ok'd by God. But to really accept that argument, you also have to accept that the entire Torah was written at the same time and by one person, namely Moses. IMO, that's kind of a stretch.

Again IMO, it's best not to say that there's a correct translation. That is, there is no overwhelming etymological evidence for the distinction, and it's best to look at the history and ethics surrounding the Commandment, instead. (The majority of Jewish translations use "murder," Catholic always uses "kill"--and means it--King James went with "murder," I think.)

 

[cantdog]

Right on, Sweetness. There are some general rules - Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal (though ask any serviceman for comments on the former), but as far as relationships go, if it's general, it's wrong. Only the individual case is important. Some monogamy is wrong, some same-sex, some poly. Others can be really, really good, while most are ... average.

Servicemen do murder?

Because the first Commandment is rightly translated: Thou shalt not do murder.

That aside, and really, it deserves its own thread, polyamory is not a threat to anyone, in my view. Same-gender marriages, the same. The point is continuity, close care of children, that sort of thing, isn't it?

By the practical criteria-- are the children loved and cared for? Are conditions of menace being fostered?-- polyamorous relationships are as often crappy as any other sort.

 

[fifty5]

Irrespective of translation details - killing is open to argument, despite what I believe (which is even more complicated) - my point was that general rules about relationships are always going to have to be subject to individual circumstances. They simply cannot be universal. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. All and every general rule is always going to be subject to invalidation.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RICHARD

Polyandry doesnt work because a woman is out of action for the time she's pregnant. The name of the game is get your genes into the next generation. A male can service many women.

 

[R. Richard]

RICHARD

Polyandry doesnt work because a woman is out of action for the time she's pregnant. The name of the game is get your genes into the next generation. A male can service many women.

In the few polyandry societies of which I know of, the matriach was NOT really a wife. She controlled the property of the family. The men who were'married' to her had wives with whom they bred children. The matriarch was simply the reigning monarch for the family.