Polygamy on the rise?

[Weird Harold]

3113, yes, marriage contracts drawn up and signed by the people involved, without any government action, would solve a lot of problems. It is a very sound idea and one that I hope takes hold and flourishes.

The idea that a civil contract can replace centuries of precedent for the rights and duties of a "spouse" or legal protections enacted to protect the "spouse" is one of the prime arguments for rejecting same-sex marriages.

The concept of a "spouse" and what rights and duties are inherent in that status predate government involvement in regulating marriage by a couple of thousand years. The concept does NOT preclude multiple spouses and in some traditions (Islam, various African Tribal Customs, the original Mormon/LDS scripture, etc) the rights and duties of "secondary spouses" are spelled out as well.

Uncertain paternity of children may cause issues.

I doubt Robert A. Heinlein originated the idea of a "Line Marriage" but the concept is best known from his "future history" novels, especially the latter novels. In that concept, multiple husbands and multiple wives (and sentient spaceships and computers) sign a marriage contract, similar to a prenuptial agreement, where all children are raised in common -- no parent or parents claim exclusive "ownership" of any child. "Paternity" never becomes an issue because it is "shared" by all husbands equally.

A line marriage is more a corporation than a "marriage" but the basic principle is workable even under "common law" as long as all of the line marriage contracts are essentially the same. Seniority in the line marriage (or any other polygamous arrangement) would logically be the tie breaker when critical decisions like healthcare need to be made.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But as polygamy—pretty much by definition—has a husband with multiple wives who see themselves as "sisters" and not wives to any but the husband,

Polygamy just means multiple spouses. Gender and exclusivity aren't part of the definition.

I've been learning about polyamory lately. I met a recent divorce' who is now engaged to a man who she shares - apparently without reservations. She is open to entertaining additional men, but either none have caught her fancy, or the ones who have didn't become lovers.
...
However, mere mortals have insecurities. Young fit hedonists might make it work, but I am skeptical. I don't know how to avoid feelings of abandonment. How is time split between lovers? What happens when he is too fatigued to make love again after a night with the new woman? What if she's sated or too tired after a night with the new man? What if the two women ignore the man or the two men ignore the woman?

My partner and I have been actively poly for eleven years now, and in my experience stuff like that comes up a LOT. Making the relationship work isn't about "I never get insecure", it's about being able to acknowledge those insecurities and find some way to work through them.

I'm in a relationship with a lady who lives 10,000 miles from me. We get to see one another maybe once in two or three years, she's very busy so we don't get to talk a lot even online... and recently she found a partner who's a lot younger and a lot closer to her.

Hell yes, I got insecure about that. We had to work through some stuff about expectations - e.g. what happens if she and I have a Skype date scheduled and then her partner decides to drop by spontaneously. One of the hardest parts was just learning that it's OK to say "hey, I'm feeling down, can I get a hug?" once in a while.

It works out for us - the pluses outweigh the minuses - but it's certainly not an easy option and it's not for everybody.

I doubt Robert A. Heinlein originated the idea of a "Line Marriage" but the concept is best known from his "future history" novels, especially the latter novels. In that concept, multiple husbands and multiple wives (and sentient spaceships and computers) sign a marriage contract, similar to a prenuptial agreement, where all children are raised in common -- no parent or parents claim exclusive "ownership" of any child. "Paternity" never becomes an issue because it is "shared" by all husbands equally.

I've been playing with some related ideas for a fantasy setting - I wanted a polygamous society that didn't have the usual "rich dudes with harems" approach. The society doesn't track either paternity or maternity. Instead, they avoid close inbreeding by using a moiety system: each child is assigned to a specific group at birth, and they're allowed to have whatever sexual relations they like within that group, but their children are assigned to different groups according to rules that prevent anybody from being in the same group as a close relative of the opposite sex. (Details here if anybody's curious.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

Guess the assumption of the thread is that cohusbands would necessarily just be sharing the wife and not each other?

I could do with a cohusband if he was bi, young, rich, and built (and would do the dishes, take the garbage out, and take the cars in for servicing).

Yeah, poly groups get a lot of "personals" ads that translate to "wanted: housekeeper/nanny, will be paid in sex" ;-)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Shit happens, and I've run scores of men thru paternity tests to identify the lucky contestant, cuz the motto of Earth is: THIS TOO SHALL PASS, SO KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID. You got any idea how much time it takes to arraign 40-50 paternity contestants? Then you discover the winner is Grandpa. Or, my favorite, Ma aint really the kid's mother.

But in the meantime the players are beating each other up in the parking lot.

Reading all the feel-good blabber about the polygamists, I thought about the likely consequences of one child of the 16 or 24 injured, and no one knows how it happened. Well, all 16 or 24 kids go to fostercare until the adults buy a clue.

Liberals seem determined to wreck society by celebrating every whackerdoodle combination and permutation of human folly.

 

[AllardChardon]

During my trip to Tennessee, I, once again, stopped in at The Social Club in Nashville. It is a sex club for members, but anyone with money to get in becomes a member. You bring your own booze and enjoy all the facilities. I truly prefer this club to "normal clubs", mostly because the people are all so laid-back and easy to get along with. A woman I met asked me if I was a member on SLS, swingers lifestyle. No, I replied. You should join, was her response. I decided to take her advice when I returned and am in the process of going through the prospective lovers in my area.

I live in a remote area without many single men my age (who are in decent shape). I was so tired of getting all dressed up and going out to regular clubs to try and find a lover, just to be disappointed, again and again. This way, I have a better chance of actually getting laid by someone I have something in common with, rather than going home alone.

If any of my new relationships involves sharing, I am sure I will be up for it. The only time I want exclusivity is when I actually fall in love with someone and then sharing is harder. Hopefully, I won't fall in love and just stay in serious liking.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

During my trip to Tennessee, I, once again, stopped in at The Social Club in Nashville. It is a sex club for members, but anyone with money to get in becomes a member. You bring your own booze and enjoy all the facilities. I truly prefer this club to "normal clubs", mostly because the people are all so laid-back and easy to get along with. A woman I met asked me if I was a member on SLS, swingers lifestyle. No, I replied. You should join, was her response. I decided to take her advice when I returned and am in the process of going through the prospective lovers in my area.

I live in a remote area without many single men my age (who are in decent shape). I was so tired of getting all dressed up and going out to regular clubs to try and find a lover, just to be disappointed, again and again. This way, I have a better chance of actually getting laid by someone I have something in common with, rather than going home alone.

If any of my new relationships involves sharing, I am sure I will be up for it. The only time I want exclusivity is when I actually fall in love with someone and then sharing is harder. Hopefully, I won't fall in love and just stay in serious liking.

What exactly makes you ALL THAT. I don't get it from your AV.

 

[1sickbastard]

I never thought we humans could come so far in our thinking about relationships in what seems like such a short time, when compared to the history of nuptials worldwide. We are expanding in ways and views that I thought were impossibly resistant to change. Very encouraging, indeed.

The biggest change was accepting the notion that people are not property, which until pretty recently, is what what at the core of the institution of marriage. Women were consider property of their father (as were male children until they reached legal adulthood) until they were deeded over to their husbands during the marriage ceremony. "Who gives this woman over in marriage" are still words spoken in many weddings, but never have I heard, "Who gives this man over in marriage".

If marriage ceases to be a transfer of chattel, then what is it other than a relationship between consenting adults? It is from this premise that began the 'slippery slope' that has lead to same-sex marriages and will likely, in due time, also lead to the legalization of multiple-partner marriage.

As a practical matter, even if (or probably when), poly-marriages are granted legal status, I don't foresee them becoming commonplace. Emotionally intimate relationships between two partners are tough enough, never mind more that two. Even in areas where polygamy is both legal and socially accepted, it is not widely practiced.

 

[1sickbastard]

Liberals seem determined to wreck society by celebrating every whackerdoodle combination and permutation of human folly.

Yeah, that's the bitch about freedom; it includes the freedom to be stupid & make poor life choices. The problem is we've devoted so many resources into rescuing people from their stupidity. All's I'm saying is that we need to get rid of all the warning labels. The problem will solve itself in a generation or two.

But let's leave the political name-calling on the General Board where it belongs, shall we?

 

[Hypoxia]

The biggest change was accepting the notion that people are not property, which until pretty recently, is what what at the core of the institution of marriage.

And at the core of the institution of slavery, not yet eradicated.

If marriage ceases to be a transfer of chattel, then what is it other than a relationship between consenting adults? It is from this premise that began the 'slippery slope' that has lead to same-sex marriages and will likely, in due time, also lead to the legalization of multiple-partner marriage.

Much as I disrespect Tom Friedman, I am struck by his equating a society's legal system to a computer network's operating system. (Or maybe he stole that notion too.) In a Darwinian universe, the most full-featured and transparent OS's are those that will eventually prevail and prosper. The legal system (social OS) that allows the most opportunity for education, productivity, free thought and communications etc, would most likely prevail in global competition. Societies that trample individuals just because of their personal status (gender/orientation, ethnicity, beliefs etc) will be long-term losers.

 

[pfflyerhot]

Couple of documentaries on the topic of polyamory, if anyone's interested:

POLYAMORY - Journalism Major Project, University of Technology, Sydney, 2012
I Love You And You And You - End of Monogamy (2012)
Hidden Lives: Three in a Bed (2007)
Co-husbands (with kids involved) are interviewed in both videos, I think.

After getting sucked into the cable series, Big Love, I became compelled to find out more about plural marriage, the FLDS (Fundamentalists, polygamists), the LDS (mainstream Mormon Church that has disowned polygamy) and modern polygamists (probably not FDLS-ers, anymore... possibly mainstream LDS-ers living plural marriage secretly from their church community). I was fascinated about this different world from mine. I had no idea...
Here's a couple of documentaries I watched to sort out my curiosity and understanding... And, Big Love, despite it's initial "nighttime soap opera" feel (I ended up loving the series, the writing, the acting, the sets... the sound design. The opening montage? Fucking fabulous!) wasn't too far off the mark as far as portrayals go based on these documentaries, and others:

Inside Polygamy: Life is Bountiful
Lifting the Veil of Polygamy
Damned to Heaven

 

[carlieplum]

The idea of having an extra wife who had a decent-paying job or a mania for cleaning the house is appealing, but it all breaks down at the part where she gets to sleep with Mr. Plum. Ain't gonna happen.

I do have two polygamous stories planned, whenever I get around to writing them. But neither is one man-group of women, or one woman-group of men, it's more like the marriages in Heinlein books like The Cat Who Walked Through Walls or Friday. Except not in outer space.

 

[sr71plt]

The idea of having an extra wife who had a decent-paying job or a mania for cleaning the house is appealing, but it all breaks down at the part where she gets to sleep with Mr. Plum. Ain't gonna happen.

I think you'd find it didn't work real well in all sorts of departments.

Reminds me of the Chinese ideograph for the word "tranquillity." It combines the ideographs of two other words: One woman under a roof.

One woman only.

 

[carlieplum]

I'm sure. That's why we have fiction. So all the ways that it doesn't work become plot points instead of the beginnings of ulcers and migraines--or very loud fights and broken porcelain.

 

[sr71plt]

I need someone to do all of the handyman chores--someone younger--most likely a man.

It's exhausting me to watch my wife do them all and she seems to be slowing down with age.

 

[AllardChardon]

Thanks, pfflyerhot, for posting those links. Being a historical writer and focusing on the 1850s for my novels means I know a bit more about what was going on with the Mormons back then, when polygamy was still legal in the U.S., rather than now. I will watch the videos and learn more about modern polygamists.

Marriage is more about retaining the ownership of property within a family or group of families than simply women as property, in my thinking. Since women had no way of making a living to support themselves, all of their property came from their father, or mother if widowed. It was often in the interest of the father who received her property, more than who bedded his beloved daughter.

A woman friend of mine, who is Italian, was not allowed to inherit her own mother's restaurant simply because she was an unmarried woman. It was sold to a male cousin instead and continues on without "the rightful owner" to this day. Sad to say, that tradition still lives on.

 

[3113]

The idea that a civil contract can replace centuries of precedent for the rights and duties of a "spouse" or legal protections enacted to protect the "spouse" is one of the prime arguments for rejecting same-sex marriages.

And one of the prime reasons that the argument fails is because those civil contracts have been unable to replace the rights and duties and legal protections given by the government to "spouses"—as well as the fact that the argument has gays being forced to have a contract while heterosexuals can choose if they want contract or marriage. Which means, the argument wants things "separate but equal" which, it's been established, is not equal. You can't take away someone's right to drink at a public fountain by saying "they've got their own fountain on the other side of the park."

However, if the government got out of marriage entirely and there were only civil contracts for everyone, then it would be equal. Anyone who wanted a "marriage" of whatever type could have it, with the rights, duties and legal protections spelled out in an agreed up on contract.

Not that I believe this is going to happen in my lifetime. Americans are too invested in the magic of marriage. They want it to confer special benefits that can't be gotten by way of any other contract.

 

[Weird Harold]

However, if the government got out of marriage entirely and there were only civil contracts for everyone, then it would be equal. Anyone who wanted a "marriage" of whatever type could have it, with the rights, duties and legal protections spelled out in an agreed up on contract.

The problem is that government involvement in marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon, while the legal/common law status of a spouse is not. Most of the automatic legal considerations of "marriage" are simply codifications of centuries of common law's unwritten rules for the rights and duties of a Spouse.

An "agreed upon contract", a la a pre-nuptial agreement, has been challenged in court and overturned on the basis of common law precedents more than once. Palimony suits also rely heavily on common law precedent. The presence or absence of "An agreed upon contract" doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference when the traditional rights and duties of a Spouse is brought before the bench.

Given that much of the legal status of Spouses -- generally wives (in the US) -- was enacted to codify protections that overturned some archaic, patriarchal traditions, I very much doubt that government is going to abjure the regulation of "marriage" in the foreseeable future. I'm not entirely sure that I would want the resulting return to just medieval common law either.

Some rather repressive, misogynistic jurisdictions around the world allow polygyny (but not polyandry), but the do have a lot of the questions raised codified in their legal systems. I doubt that the US would want to adopt those codes entire, but they would provide a starting point and precedences for inheritance and other issues. Other jurisdictions provide cultural, if not legal codification, precedent for Polyandry or gender neutral polygamy.

Somewhere in the world and/or somewhere in time are the rules and/or laws that would make polygamy in any and all of its various permutations workable. I don't expect a rational approach from a US government infested with Tea-party and neo-con Republicans -- or even a totally Democrat government; There are just too many fundamentalist Christians in the electorate for it to ever be easy.

 

[desertslave]

A woman friend of mine, who is Italian, was not allowed to inherit her own mother's restaurant simply because she was an unmarried woman. It was sold to a male cousin instead and continues on without "the rightful owner" to this day. Sad to say, that tradition still lives on.

I remember being shocked that it was French law (as conveyed by my French teacher, a native) that married women couldn't have a credit card in their own name, and only with their husbands' permission. That was in 1971! Then again, all of my mom's cards were Mrs (husband's name) until I fussed at her in 1983 or so. One of my friends fathers had just died suddenly, and her mom lost all of her credit because it was all "Mrs." at the time.

An interesting historical note (okay, interesting to me, anyway ) is that at roughly the same time period in Christian medieval Europe a woman could not own a business in her own name (even if she inherited it from her husband) but in Islamic Mediterranean countries (Spain, North Africa, and the East Med.) widows could, indeed, have their own, albeit inherited, businesses and even use their own names with legal/financial authority. (Circa 1000-1200 CE)

 

[AllardChardon]

I agree that Americans are too invested in the magic of marriage (and making babies). Of course, I got married and had four babies, now all grown, so I had my own fling with all that. Funny, how the reality of my not-so-good marriage and raising four children kind of squelched the magic part of it.

I also can't see the government getting out of the marriage business, any more than I can see doctors getting out of the baby business. Both are just too lucrative. Millions of people the world over continue to mate and reproduce and, of course, someone figured out how to make money on it. Add in all the money on divorces paid to lawyers, and it looks like none of it will ever go away.

 

[StrangeLife]

I remember being shocked that it was French law (as conveyed by my French teacher, a native) that married women couldn't have a credit card in their own name, and only with their husbands' permission...

If you were married to my wife you would support that law - trust me.

 

[desertslave]

I also can't see the government getting out of the marriage business, any more than I can see doctors getting out of the baby business. Both are just too lucrative. Millions of people the world over continue to mate and reproduce and, of course, someone figured out how to make money on it. Add in all the money on divorces paid to lawyers, and it looks like none of it will ever go away.

Polygamy notwithstanding, I like the gov't involvement in principle because it's a more likely way of permitting "gay marriage" than leaving it up to religious groups. I know there's a lot of "yes, but..." in that notion, but 17 states (so far) is a good sign, at least here in the US.

 

[AllardChardon]

I agree, desertslave, 17 states is a good sign and the way the laws are being changed state by state is working very well, just like it did with marijuana, another favorite subject of mine.

I want to thank everyone, who posted to this thread, for a very enlightening discussion of possible things to come.

Merry Christmas to All.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

An interesting discussion, one that runs centrally through many of my posted stories. Thanx for starting this, AC, and Merry Christmas to you, too.


p.s., folks. Remember that 'Christian monogamy' only applies to the clergy or, as they are named in Paul's epistles, 'elders'. Theologically there is no rule against it. Now it could be argued that he meant only polygyny because that's what was most common at the time but it doesn't say so.

 

[GorgeousGeekGirl]

Since this issue (in this discussion) is rooted in the Bible, let's look at what the Bible has to say about it. Every single time a polygamous marriage was spotlighted, there were serious problems as a result. And we need to keep in mind, the Bible is written from a male viewpoint (the beneficiaries of polygamy), and in a culture where polygamy was socially and legally acceptable.

Abraham, takes 2nd wife at his first wife's urging so they can have a child. The fighting between the 2 got so bad that the second wife tried to run away while she was pregnant. About 12 years later, the fighting was still so bad that Abraham kicked 2nd wife and son out into the desert.

Jacob, fooled into marrying sisters. He loved one, but valued the other more because she was a baby machine. The competition got so bad between the sisters that they got Jacob to marry 2 more women to rack up points in the baby contest. The brothers would go get into trouble all the time, and it was always with brothers they shared a mother with. The mothers passed down the fighting and competition to the boys. Because of dad's favoritism and man whoring, one son slept with his dads sex slave, one brother slept with his daughter in law when he was trying to solicit a prostitute, and one son was sold off to foreign slave traders.

Samuel: his mother was a cowife. The husband loved her more even though she couldn't have children. Here comes the second wife who is a baby machine. She resents her second position, so she spends time making life hell for the first wife. The first wife is so distraught, she looks falling down drunk when she's trying to pray for a child.

David: at least 2 civil wars started over his sons of multiple wives fighting over succession or rape. When Solomon took the throne, he had all his living brothers assassinated in order to eliminate competition.

Solomon: had loads of wives who introduced foreign religions, including Baal and Molech, both which practiced church sponsored prostitution and child sacrifice. When Solomon's son Rehoboam, took the throne, the people brought a specific grievance about having to pay high taxes in order to support Solomon's many wives. When Rehoboam refused their petition, 10 of 12 tribes revolted and formed a new nation that had as main religions worship of Baal and Molech.

For those who say let them do as they will because they aren't hurting anyone, history doesn't bear it out. Would you really be ok with the person you committed your life to now taking live, time, and energy from you and your child in order to give it to another? Or would you say that since they are no longer devoted wholly to you, you have no reason to be wholly devoted to them, so you now seek another also?

 

[AllardChardon]

Very interesting accounting of Biblical polygamy and its pitfalls, and thank you very much for taking the time to post it.

This is a quote from Mark Twain's book, Roughing It;

Roughing It – Chapter 14, pages 97-98

Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.

I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No--the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure--and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."