And the Polygamy Saga Continues

[3113]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the compound....

A Texas grand jury indicted polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs and four of his followers Tuesday on charges of felony sexual assault of a child. Another was indicted for failing to report child abuse. Attorney General Greg Abbott said the five men are charged with one count of sexually assaulting girls under age 17. One of them, but not the 52-year-old Jeffs, faces an additional charge of bigamy....Jeffs, already convicted of being accomplice to rape in Utah and awaiting trial in Arizona on other charges related to underage marriages, is accused of assaulting a girl in Texas in January 2005, according to the indictment issued Tuesday.

....The criminal indictments were issued after a separate child custody case in which more than 400 children were placed in foster care. The Texas Supreme Court ruled child welfare authorities overstepped in taking all the children from their parents even though many were infants and toddlers and the state failed to show any more than handful of teenage girls were abused or at risk.

....Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, but documents released as part of the separate child custody case involving the FLDS children have revealed some of the evidence collected by law enforcement during the weeklong raid that began April 3. Among the hundreds of boxes of photos, papers and family Bibles, investigators found photos of Jeffs in intimate embraces and kissing several apparently underage girls. A journal entry purportedly from Jeffs attached to a report by a child advocate indicates he married his daughter to a 34-year-old man the day after she turned 15. The girl turns 17 on Saturday and has denied being married, though the child advocate report indicates intimate notes between the girl and man were also found in the raid.

In addition to discussions of the girl's marriage, the Jeffs journal entry also indicates he blessed marriages of two other underage sect members to himself and another member. FLDS leaders have consistently denied there was any abuse at the ranch and vowed not to sanction underage marriages. Under Texas law, a girl younger than 17 cannot generally consent to sex with an adult. Bigamy is also illegal in Texas, and although FLDS plural marriages were not licensed by the state, the law contains a provision outlawing the act of "purporting to marry" more than one person.

Full story here.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Isn't this the charge that they should have been brought up on instead of herding the children away in the first place?

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Isn't this the charge that they should have been brought up on instead of herding the children away in the first place?

Probably... but they seem to have accumulated the evidence during that period which resulted in THESE charges....

You know..... now we are on this subject... What is the deal with polygamy anyway?

I appreciate that it is not in "our" cultural tradition and all but does someone feel that there is some societal purpose served by making it "illegal"?

On another thread here, we have been debating (some of us have been "debating") relgious freedom and how to guarantee it.... Is this an example of a religous belief that has made it into our legal system?

Is there any rational argument against polygamy which stands on its own merit and justifies societies efforts to eradicate it?

-KC

 

[R. Richard]

Is there any rational argument against polygamy which stands on its own merit and justifies societies efforts to eradicate it?

-KC

Yes. Simple arithmetic. In a polygamous/polygyny society, men tend to have more than one wife. Thus, the older men in the community accumlate wives. In the same communities, the birth rate is about even, with a small perponderance of boys over girls. This leaves the boys/young men in the community without a wife and without any real chance of ever having a wife. Thus, the boys in the community are largely taken elsewhere and dumped. The dumped boys have little or no education [Why invest resources in an outcast?] The dumped boys then have to be supported by the community where they are dumped or they turn into petty criminals to survive.

But wait! The boys can certainly find a wife in a polygamous/polyandry society where a wife has several husbands. No, not really. The only polyandry based societies are in Africa. The polyandry wife isn't really a wife, but a keeper of the family resources [land, cattle, etc.] In order to be a husband, you have to be born in the 'family.'

Also, the men in a polygamous/polygyny society can rarely support their multiple wives. The men tend to have few real world skills and they mostly rely upon welfare to support their families.

 

[3113]

Also, the men in a polygamous/polygyny society can rarely support their multiple wives. The men tend to have few real world skills and they mostly rely upon welfare to support their families.

We will accept that all these points are valid, but, rather like illegal drugs, a lot of this kinda has to do with with the fact that the polygamy is illegal. This includes forcing young, underage girls to marry older men. That's illegal no matter what--doesn't matter if the girl is going to be the man's fourth wife or his first. But if you're already doing something illegal in the name of religion, why not something else? If pologamy *was* legal then laws could be created about it. As we learned from Prohibition--and have yet to learn when it comes to drugs--If the thing is legal, then you can, ironically, regulate it. If it's illegal, then there's no regulation.

And regulation allows you to focus on the things that matter (underage girls) rather than things that don't matter (bigamy).

Now *if* polygamy and polyandry and group marriages were legal then society could create laws regarding them. For example, no one can have more wives than they can afford to support. i.e., you can have the multiple wife lifestyle but the state isn't going to indulge you in it. Likewise, the law could say that *all* children from said marriages must be supported no matter the gender. Obviously, abandoning or abusing any child should be a crime. Tax laws, child custody laws, divorce laws, property laws, who-decides-what-for-the-sick-spouce would all have to take multiple marriages into account, and could be regulated very strictly. If it's a pain in the ass to have a lot of wives, then you won't have so many. If you're raised in a society where a multiple marriage requires that you take real responsibility and fill out paperwork and all the rest, if you're raised to know that you may end up in court, maybe three times for all three wives, you'll be less inclined to blithely take on that second or third wife.

In the end, there's no real reason to outlaw it. As said, if this is a freedom of religion issue--and it is--then there's no reason it should be illegal. It's a private choice between consenting adults. We don't outlaw regular marriage, or even a guy marrying, having a kid, divorcing, marrying another woman, divorcing, marrying another woman...yet this man could leave all ex-wives and kids on welfare, could have abandoned the boys or given the girls to his friends to molest.

Polygamy doesn't cause these problems you named--allowing men in compounds to do what they please with the women and children in the compounds is what causes the problem. Take away a man's ultimate power to do anything he god-damn pleases, make him and his wives responsible for this multiple marriage, with real consequences for irresponsiblity, and polygamy is not going to have those problems any more than any other marriage.

Now, of course, the country could argue that it will have problems keeping track of taxes, child custody and all the rest, and not legalize it on that count.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I have a little trouble with justifying polygamy as a "religious" decision. It might be ultimately justified by one's religion, but the sphere of life it occurs in is clearly not theological but social. Whether to be baptized at birth or at adulthood, that's a religious decision.

If polygamy is justified by religion, than you could also make the argument that incest is a religious decision based on examples from the bible.

The whole Mormon religion is awfully embarrassing in my opinion.

 

[R. Richard]

We will accept that all these points are valid, but, rather like illegal drugs, a lot of this kinda has to do with with the fact that the polygamy is illegal. This includes forcing young, underage girls to marry older men. That's illegal no matter what--doesn't matter if the girl is going to be the man's fourth wife or his first. But if you're already doing something illegal in the name of religion, why not something else? If pologamy *was* legal then laws could be created about it. As we learned from Prohibition--and have yet to learn when it comes to drugs--If the thing is legal, then you can, ironically, regulate it. If it's illegal, then there's no regulation.

And regulation allows you to focus on the things that matter (underage girls) rather than things that don't matter (bigamy).

Now *if* polygamy and polyandry and group marriages were legal then society could create laws regarding them. For example, no one can have more wives than they can afford to support. i.e., you can have the multiple wife lifestyle but the state isn't going to indulge you in it. Likewise, the law could say that *all* children from said marriages must be supported no matter the gender. Obviously, abandoning or abusing any child should be a crime. Tax laws, child custody laws, divorce laws, property laws, who-decides-what-for-the-sick-spouce would all have to take multiple marriages into account, and could be regulated very strictly. If it's a pain in the ass to have a lot of wives, then you won't have so many. If you're raised in a society where a multiple marriage requires that you take real responsibility and fill out paperwork and all the rest, if you're raised to know that you may end up in court, maybe three times for all three wives, you'll be less inclined to blithely take on that second or third wife.

It is not just in polygamous marriages that the husband is unable to support his wife/wives. In any number of young marriages, the marriage takes place because the girl is pregnant. The idea is then that the 'daddy' with then support the child and not society.

It is a requirement that a divorced parent support his/her non-custodial children. However, there is no way to force a parent who really can't support his/her non-custodial children to do so. In my rather unusual business, I run across families where the non custodial parent is required to make weekly payments of perhaps $5, not because those payments will support the child but because that's all that's left after absolute minimum living expenses. It's an impossible situation, except that the taxpayers pick up the burden.

Now, let's consider the children. The boys are simply taken elsewhere and abandoned. The girls then present a problem and a solution. A 16-year-old girl is nearing the end of her useful welfare recipient life. Once she turns 18-years-old, the welfare spigot turns off. HOWEVER, if the girl gets married and gets pregnant, the welfare spigot stays turned on. The girl now has her own family and she now gets her own 'welfare ticket.' BUT WAIT, society will, force the multiple-wife husband to support his families. Yeah, right. The typical multiple-wife husband, if he's lucky, will have a near minimum wage job as a laborer. There is no way in hell that he can support multiple families.

Then the taxpayer is once again told, BOHICA!

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

It is not just in polygamous marriages that the husband is unable to support his wife/wives. In any number of young marriages, the marriage takes place because the girl is pregnant. The idea is then that the 'daddy' with then support the child and not society.

It is a requirement that a divorced parent support his/her non-custodial children. However, there is no way to force a parent who really can't support his/her non-custodial children to do so. In my rather unusual business, I run across families where the non custodial parent is required to make weekly payments of perhaps $5, not because those payments will support the child but because that's all that's left after absolute minimum living expenses. It's an impossible situation, except that the taxpayers pick up the burden.

Now, let's consider the children. The boys are simply taken elsewhere and abandoned. The girls then present a problem and a solution. A 16-year-old girl is nearing the end of her useful welfare recipient life. Once she turns 18-years-old, the welfare spigot turns off. HOWEVER, if the girl gets married and gets pregnant, the welfare spigot stays turned on. The girl now has her own family and she now gets her own 'welfare ticket.' BUT WAIT, society will, force the multiple-wife husband to support his families. Yeah, right. The typical multiple-wife husband, if he's lucky, will have a near minimum wage job as a laborer. There is no way in hell that he can support multiple families.

Then the taxpayer is once again told, BOHICA!

Well.... I asked I guess. This is more than a little like the gay marriage thing... you can legislate about it all you want but the reality of gay couples is there anyway, whether you call it marriage or not.

I would suggest to you all the dire examples you cite are ALREADY present in our society.... There is NO law now against impregnating children by different women AND not being married to them is NO defense against child support.

I am not aware of any ground swell support for suddenly increasing the number of multiple spouse households but we all know they exist... several right here on our board, I believe. And they exist even given the capricious enforcement of the laws against them.

And while we all agree, I hope, that it is nobody's business but theirs if threesomes live together, it remains inexplicability illegal... the result, I would suggest, of adherence more to a religious dogma than to any practical societal benefit.

Remember, we are not mandating polygamy, just not making it illegal, per se.

-KC

 

[R. Richard]

Well.... I asked I guess. This is more than a little like the gay marriage thing... you can legislate about it all you want but the reality of gay couples is there anyway, whether you call it marriage or not.

I would suggest to you all the dire examples you cite are ALREADY present in our society.... There is NO law now against impregnating children by different women AND not being married to them is NO defense against child support.

I am not aware of any ground swell support for suddenly increasing the number of multiple spouse households but we all know they exist... several right here on our board, I believe. And they exist even given the capricious enforcement of the laws against them.

And while we all agree, I hope, that it is nobody's business but theirs if threesomes live together, it remains inexplicability illegal... the result, I would suggest, of adherence more to a religious dogma than to any practical societal benefit.

Remember, we are not mandating polygamy, just not making it illegal, per se.

-KC

I have no problem with people running their own lives, as long as they support themselves and don't abuse children.

However, I'm an official US government taxpayer. I have a big problem when someone comes to the government and, in effect, says, "I'm going to run my life my way and you're damn well going to support me financially." My problem extends to the establishment of lifestyles that conceptually can't be self supporting.

Yes, there are wandering studs who sire children and then move on. However, they don't have a society, including the mothers of the girls, that encourages the practice. Yes, society can mandate child support. However, there is no way in hell that a polygamist who makes $9,000 per year can support four households.

Of course the abuse of underage girls in a polygamous society is obvious. However, the abuse of teenage boys that I cited earlier is not so obvious. The boys can never realistically marry within the society. Thus, the boys really have no place in the society, and are allocated minimum resources. The result is a boy, with no real skills and no real learning being abandoned outside the polygamist society. I'm not talking theory here, I live in the western US and we have some examples of abandoned boys who hang around the edges of our local towns and try to get heavy labor farm hand jobs, which is all they can really do. There aren't enough heavy labor farm hand jobs to go around and most of the boys wind up in jail or even prison.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Richard, most married couples that I know hold down two jobs. Very few husbands are the sole providers.

The polygamous families that I know, there are three adults, all holding jobs, same with the polyandrous. Many of them do not have children and do not plan to do so.

The plight of abandoned teenaged boys is certainly real. But it is not really connected with polyamory.

Let me add that, in cases where a polygamous marriage has been undertaken for personal reasons (not Mormon reasons) the two women are very often the instigators, and the guy just happens to get the benefits because he was married to one of them.

 

[R. Richard]

Richard, most married couples that I know hold down two jobs. Very few husbands are the sole providers.

The polygamous families that I know, there are three adults, all holding jobs, same with the polyandrous. Many of them do not have children and do not plan to do so.

Yes, thanks to the tax structure mandated by the welfare state, it is now pretty much a practical necessity for both of a married couple to hold down a job. Most of the three adult families I'm aware of are in Manhattan. If you want to live the good life in Manhattan, it is again a practical necessity to have three working adults to finance said good life. I might add that it's not all that unusual for each of the adults to make over $100K per year.

The plight of abandoned teenaged boys is certainly real. But it is not really connected with polyamory.

Nor did I say that it was. What I was addressing was not a three couple relationship, but the 'real' polygamists who have multiple wives, typically with each wife having a separate house or at least a separate apatment withing a house. The Manhattan 'polyamorists' tend to live in a single [very expensive] high rise apartment. [If there is just the one elevator, a casual visitor who doesn't want it known that he did visit one of the ladies has to use some very elaborate tactics.]

Let me add that, in cases where a polygamous marriage has been undertaken for personal reasons (not Mormon reasons) the two women are very often the instigators, and the guy just happens to get the benefits because he was married to one of them.

First, let me state that the polygamists I was talking about are NOT Mormon. In order to enter the union, the Mormon church had to abandon polygamy. Thus, the polygamists are officially not Mormon.
Perhaps the most famous, if not too recent, examples of personal polygamous relationships were the hippie communes of the 1960's. The hipppie communes were actually examples of line marriage, rather than true polygamous relationships. The problems of abandonment in said hippie comunes was not the abandonment of teenage boys, but rather the abandonment of teenage girls and their out-of-wedlock children by the flower children males. However, abandonment was a recurring theme.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, thanks to the tax structure mandated by the welfare state, it is now pretty much a practical necessity for both of a married couple to hold down a job. Most of the three adult families I'm aware of are in Manhattan. If you want to live the good life in Manhattan, it is again a practical necessity to have three working adults to finance said good life. I might add that it's not all that unusual for each of the adults to make over $100K per year.

Oh, please. I think it might be because many women prefer to work. You know, a career, financial independence, a value that isn't based merely on having a pussy...

Nor did I say that it was. What I was addressing was not a three couple relationship, but the 'real' polygamists who have multiple wives, typically with each wife having a separate house or at least a separate apatment withing a house. The Manhattan 'polyamorists' tend to live in a single [very expensive] high rise apartment. [If there is just the one elevator, a casual visitor who doesn't want it known that he did visit one of the ladies has to use some very elaborate tactics.]

You're saying that there's only one 'real' form of polygamy then? (and why are all polyamorists located in Manhattan? Does this mean that a suburban threesome, or one residing in Chicago isn't doing it right? )

First, let me state that the polygamists I was talking about are NOT Mormon. In order to enter the union, the Mormon church had to abandon polygamy. Thus, the polygamists are officially not Mormon.

I'm sure that assuages the sensibilities of official Mormons to no end. But that duck has been quacking an awful long time, now.

Perhaps the most famous, if not too recent, examples of personal polygamous relationships were the hippie communes of the 1960's. The hipppie communes were actually examples of line marriage, rather than true polygamous relationships. The problems of abandonment in said hippie comunes was not the abandonment of teenage boys, but rather the abandonment of teenage girls and their out-of-wedlock children by the flower children males. However, abandonment was a recurring theme.

I recall the Pill being a strong re-occurring theme back in those days, myself.
But, yes, young women often did end up raising their children alone. I also know plenty children-of-flower-children who did have a father, sometimes not the birth father-- but no more were raised fatherless than now, probably fewer.

 

[emap]

Abandonment is a very common practice no matter what group your talking about. Many families believe that the child is to be booted out the door the day they turn 18.

In certain respects they are right, it does teach the young adult how to survive in the world. It teaches them to not rely on others and so forth, in most respects they are wrong though since well desperate kids will do most anything, prison being a not so bad place since they get three square meals a day. Trust me when your starving it sounds heavenly.

Sadly, alot of those families coddle their kid until they turn 18 and then say OK your done with that school nonsense, go get a job. School may teach alot of things, none of which are needed for anything you can get at 18 without a college education and a few months to get a job, these kids are always to be found doing fast food, loading and unloading trucks or if they are really lucky, working in a grocery store. If they do none of those because they believe they should be able to get a white collar job, they are quickly found being a prostitute or stealing.

Poly relationships do work, though there cannot be a requirement that they support themselves. That would quickly get removed by some group because it is unconstitutional, it prevents certain members of society from doing it. The whole freedom to pursue happiness thing. It shouldn't be illegal no, I personally couldn't do that, heck we can't even have a threesome so far. I don't see a problem with others doing it though.

I remember back when Jeffs was being looked for they did an interview with a multiple wife and she seemed quite happy with it, the house she lived in with her kids, three I think was small, piled high with stuff cause it's small and 4 people there, and no TV, no computer, she didn't have a working laundry machine, dryer worked but the washer had broken and he hadn't been able to buy a new one yet, well used new one anyway.

I am going to say one other thing. I disagree that they marry their daughter young because welfare is going to end for them. Welfare doesn't actually end, they just stop being a kid and instead get adult welfare, foodstamps are easy to get, SSI isn't that hard to get. For those who don't know, social security for some reason handles unemployment for those who won't get a job. It's Social Security Income Assistance, they drop the A for unknown reasons.

 

[R. Richard]

I remember back when Jeffs was being looked for they did an interview with a multiple wife and she seemed quite happy with it, the house she lived in with her kids, three I think was small, piled high with stuff cause it's small and 4 people there, and no TV, no computer, she didn't have a working laundry machine, dryer worked but the washer had broken and he hadn't been able to buy a new one yet, well used new one anyway.

First, what if she wasn't happy with things? Once the interviewer left, she would then have to deal with her husband. Second, if the life she was living was all she had ever known and all the people around her had ever known, why would she not be happy? Third, from your descripton, she had little knowledge of the outside world [no computer, no TV.] What you're describing isn't a wife, she's a slave.

I am going to say one other thing. I disagree that they marry their daughter young because welfare is going to end for them. Welfare doesn't actually end, they just stop being a kid and instead get adult welfare, foodstamps are easy to get, SSI isn't that hard to get. For those who don't know, social security for some reason handles unemployment for those who won't get a job. It's Social Security Income Assistance, they drop the A for unknown reasons.

I think you have overlooked something. If a daughter starts to get welfare, she becomes, to a degree, independent. If a daughter becomes independent, she just might start to question why she is going to marry a man with a couple three other wives already. All it takes is one daughter to kick over the traces and you have a rebellion right here in polygamyville.
I think that you are assuming that her mother is in the Social Security system. I have never received any form of public assistance, so I'm speaking from ignorance here. However, I believe that most welfare agencies won't give welfare if an able bodied husband is living at home. Thus, I would tend to think that the mother would never have been in the SS system. If a daughter then went down to the welfare people and told them that she just turned 18-years-old, had no job and wanted welfare, there would be some hard questions about how she came to be in her current state. If the answer was because her mother was invovled in a polgamous relationship, I can see governmental authorities becoming involved to the harm of the polygamous community.

You also used the term 'stealing.' I was in the streets from the time I was 12. I prefer the term 'informal assessment of security systems.' The merchandise obtained is involuntary payment for said assessment. Stealing is such a harsh, judgemental term. Although those stupid enough to get caught at it probably deserve punishment.

 

[Stella_Omega]

First, what if she wasn't happy with things? Once the interviewer left, she would then have to deal with her husband. Second, if the life she was living was all she had ever known and all the people around her had ever known, why would she not be happy? Third, from your descripton, she had little knowledge of the outside world [no computer, no TV.] What you're describing isn't a wife, she's a slave.
... If a daughter becomes independent, she just might start to question why she is going to marry a man with a couple three other wives already. All it takes is one daughter to kick over the traces and you have a rebellion right here in polygamyville....

And that is the problem with the Jeffs-style (is that better than Mormon-style?) of polygamy, in a nutshell. It's a problem for many deeply rural families, in fact-- every once in a while we get a news item about some group of feral children living in Idaho or somewhere you might not expect them to be. But Jeffs-style polygamy institutionalises, for its members, the mistreatment of women and children, and lets the men feel just fine for having it all their way. These isolated families at least, don't provoke societal replication.

That's not the only way to be polygamous, though.

 

[cloudy]

Many families believe that the child is to be booted out the door the day they turn 18.

In certain respects they are right, it does teach the young adult how to survive in the world. It teaches them to not rely on others and so forth, in most respects they are wrong though since well desperate kids will do most anything, prison being a not so bad place since they get three square meals a day. Trust me when your starving it sounds heavenly.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing...it all depends on how the children have been raised.

There are five siblings in my family. We all left home before we even turned 18. Yes, my parents were beyond ready for us to leave, but the point I'm making is that we were ready, prepared to be on our own well before we reached that magical eighteenth birthday.

Oldest sister left at 17, next oldest sister at 17, older brother at 16, I left at 17, and my younger brother at 16. We moved out, got jobs, paid our own way through college, bought our own cars, etc.

Most likely my children will be the same way...I hope. The first one was - my daughter. She left at 17, paid for her own college, got a job, etc. Someone's age isn't an accurate indicator of whether they are or aren't mature enough to do for themselves, never has been. If someone is raised with the expectation of taking care of themselves, and is taught how, then there's no reason they can't do so earlier than 18.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Once again, I do not see how the current laws against polygamy have any desirable effect. RR continues to argue that he doesn't think it is fair that he has help "pay" for the children of multiple partners... but the to the extent that he does, it is totally unrelated to the laws concerning polygamy.

The issue of whether or not society should provide for child support is a totally separate from that of polygamy.... As I think we have amply demonstrated above, these life styles exist and no one seems to care, except when it suits the purpose of some law official trying to come up with "charges" to file.

It is the worse kind of law... only enforced when it expedient to do so.... AND wholly unnecessary. The actual "crimes", if you will, in the examples above are the acts that allegedly take place in the context of these polygamous marriages are much more prevalent in the monogamous relationships! And more to the point, are prosecuted in their own right.

So again, we, as a society, ignore the laws as a matter of routine because "everyone" knows it is silly when applied to three childless adults living together. Why these relationships cannot be "legalized" is beyond me.

I would respectfully suggest that these laws are simply the legacy of our religious heritage.... and do not serve any useful purpose today. As such, along with thousands of other religiously derived laws ought to be tossed out.

The Jeffs of this world commit their own crimes. That they choose to call it marriage rather than just all shacking up together (which I guess would be legal) is curiously a religious choice given their belief that sex outside of a religious marriage is a sin. To have this used against them by a society that openly condones sex with multiple partners outside of marriage is sheer hypocrisy.

-KC

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I think that it is significant that many polygamous societies have existed for centuries where the husbands (and sometimes some of the wives, too) worked and provided enough for the family.

It is also important to note that the parity between the sexes in numbers is a recent historical development. Historically, there was a greater disparity in numbers, due to wars in which so many men were killed young.

Nor was Christian polygamy as rare as some might think. The Munster group in Germany during the Reformation is a prime example of this.

All in all, polygamy has its place, but in this modern society, the inclusion of polyandry as well polygyny and monogamy would be required. We simply have too many men for every man to be polygynous, except in a group marriage with multiple members of both sexes (my personal fantasy, anyway, a blend of polygyny and polyandry, with the benefits of both). Also, in a group marriage in modern times, most of the spouses of both sexes would need to work, not just one or two of the men. But it could be done, if the majority of the partners were employed.

Also, it should be noted that some homosexuals and lesbians might find same-sex triads and such to be useful, particularly among gay men who value variety. It would cut down on the "bathhouse" culture that is twisted into a stereotype of them by homophobes.

Polygamy would also benefit bisexuals to a large extent, particularly where the co-spouses of the same sex found each other attractive. It would be another solution to the purported inequity associated with polygamy, to make use of bisexuality.

The ideal ratio in my opinion/fantasy would be 2-2 or 2-3 (2 males/2 or 3 females or 2 males/2 females/1 transsexual). 4-5 people maximum in this scenario, would be preferrable.

For those men and women who prefer multiple partners, polygamy/polyamory is a healthy alternative to promiscuity and carries less risk of HIV and STDs.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The Old Man reminds me of an urban polygamous situation of the 'traditional' type, where the five wives each lived in their own homes. That was in New York, although none of the member lived in Manhatten. We knew about it because a woman who had lived with us briefly, entered into this extended family. She seemed to be very happy. Every time we talked to her, she had news of her co-wives and their doings. When one son died, all of the family were united in their grief. The younger children had adult attention full-time, as many aunties as they could stomach.

The son of that union is amazing. He was reading by three years old....

 

[amicus]

Hello all, been absent a while, providing care for four children under the age of nine on a 24/7 basis for about two weeks now, without television and any news at all...amazing that some people pay no attention to current events.

Had forgotten how many clothes children go through, as washer, dryer and dishwasher are going almost constantly....

It also a huge three level country home on three acres and those little shits on occasion manage to hide from me if I blink my eyes more than twice in a row.

That said...in the luxury of a few hours daily of 'down time', I have been rereading Jean Auel's series of books beginning with Clan of the Cave Bear and some of her fictional views on family life appear pertinent to this discussion.

My initial interest in the Texas FLDS fiasco with the brute power exercised by the authorities who I claim far over reached the authority vested in government to illegally kidnap 462 children in one swell foop.

My complaint has been realized as the court system agreed and returned the children.

But I wish at attempt, notice I italicized, 'attempt', to widen the dimensions of this discussion along the line that Severus Max just did and along another avenue which no one will appreciate either.

Communal existence has been with the society of man forever and for many of the reasons mentioned before.

Religion; faith, belief, the communal acceptance of a moral and ethical, 'belief' system to which all adhere is most appealing to woman, who sorely lack the qualities of reason, rationality and logic and are far more dependent upon the gratuities of a 'communal' existence than are men, because of the burden of menses and resultant near constant gravid condition of most primitive societies before birth control.

And this phoney uproar about 'underage' females being taken advantage of by the older men in the commune, is a load of crap. History tells us that young girls on approaching puberty have always been married off at the earliest possible moment as the female, at almost the instant she is fertile and in season, in heat, will present her self to be impregnated.

Although 'Auel's' presentation of her social imperatives where girls as young as eleven years are impregnated, is a bit extreme, it does draw attention to an aspect of the human animals proclivitities to communal existence with one male servicing the herd.

The Mormons, the Quakers and hundreds of other religious, communal enclaves reflect an earlier time during which the natural child bearing purpose and function of women was respected and managed for the highest benefit of the commune.

Thus far from being a religion run by dirty old men who just want to 'pork' tender young females, the girls themselves yearn for the protection and comfort and stability of one male directing family affairs and their main pupose is to bear children and trade methods with other females doing the same thing.

If you have read and understand any of my contributions at all you know I am an advocate of the individual and not the commune. I qualify that from time to time by insisting that man is in a transitional state from his communal past to an unknown future and that the emergence of an individual ethical system is a work in progress with our 'communal' friemds, the socialists and social democrats and religious nuts, still clinging to a 'cave man' existence of communal societies ruled by strong father figures.

I suspect that the members of the FLDS in specific and communal societies in general, are quite happy and comfortable with the young women being made mothers and responsible women and the excess males being booted as they have always been in such societies.

The feminist uproar over the 'treatment' of these underage females is just a political bleep of ignorance that supports and justifies dependence on a larger commune, that of the State and Big Brother, that just replaced the dreaded and hated paternal figures of the past.

Cooking a full meal for seven is something I have not done in a long while, did baked chicken and beef stew, think I will see if I can remember my recipe for baked pork chops and extra wide egg noodles with a white sauce.

Wish me luck.

And I don't have time to take your hand and walk you through the thoughts edpressed above...someone wanna take over for me?



Amicus...(up to his ears in rugrats)

 

[Stella_Omega]

And I don't have time to take your hand and walk you through the thoughts edpressed above...someone wanna take over for me?

Why would anyone care?

 

[emap]

Nope booting the kids out at 18 isn't a bad thing, it can be though because as I said in my first post they don't make them do anything until they shove them out the door.

R she may have been unhappy, but if you happened to watch the interview like I did, you would know she loved him, mentioned how they have fights and problems but they always work through them. This woman also was on welfare, talked about it, she wanted to get things for her kids, a computer new bikes, they were working on saving up for it. The woman I am talking about is one of the families where it works. Not wonderfully but she still has it better than some of the families I have seen.

Ami, your right women used to be married as soon as possible after they start getting periods. Heck many times before to barons and knights. There is a very good medical reason for not continuing that though, birthing mortality rates. Both for the mother and child are way down since they started saying you gotta be this age before you can get married. The uproar on these groups is about them doing what your espousing.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I havent seen any evidence that confirms child abuse. I correctly predicted that a court would overturn the seizure of the 400 kids in Texas, and it did.

Nudists take pics of their kids. They pose naked with their kids. They embrace their kids naked. None of it illegal or abuse. Generally speaking, you can dress and pose your kid however you please. But you cant insert your penis or tongue or finger inside them.

All the years I worked for the state I saw every argument there is about sexual abuse. The most absurd was the assertion that a dad cleaning a female infant is sexual abuse. It isnt. But the claims get made anyway, especially in child custody and support cases.

The IK tribe in Uganda abandons children at 3 years of age. They also use children to fatten wild animals.