Polygamy, Bigamy, and Polyandry

[Weird Harold]

The greedy ladies at the auction house, The plight of Naughty1 and her stepson/lover, The discussion on legalization of prostitution, and several other threads have made me wonder about multiple marriages.

One question that immediately came to mind as I pondered whether to post this: What is the term for a woman with two husbands? What is the feminine equivalent of bigamy?

How many people would consider such an arrangement?

If you would consider it, how many spouses would you be willing to share with?

Historically, Polygamy has been fairly common, but Polyandry hasn’t. Why is that? Is it some biological imperative that makes a man with many wives inherently acceptable, or is the preponderance of patriarchal societies that keeps polyandry from being more common?

It seems to me that polyandry would be the more logical arrangement. One wife can keep several husbands happy sexually much easier than one man can service multiple wives.

How about ‘Group Marriages,’ where polygamy and polyandry are combined?

Does it matter what sex your friend’s spouse is?

(I’m sure there are advocates of same sex marriages for themselves that will read this. I can pretty much guess what their answer will be. It’s the others the last question is for.)

 

[Sammyjo]

You are right...polyandry, would be a logical choice in that respect; however, polygamy is logical when you think about procreation.

Multiple pregnant women = multiple children

I wouldn't mind having more than one husband. I can't seem to make up my mind on which guy I want...why not have them all???

 

[Hal Jordan]

Good Topic Wierd Harold

I will just start by saying that I’ve never heard of the terms polyandry or polygamy but I hope I’ve gleaned there meaning correctly and used them in the correct context. (I’m still busy looking for a dictionary – I’m stupid and have a small vocabulary).

There are many angles from which to examine these questions.

To start I would like to state an obvious fact. We are animals. A far more advanced form of animal but a creature of nature.

With that in mind I think that the argument for a male having multiple mates seems to be less “offensive” than a female with multiple partners. I.e looking at nature there are a plethora of examples of males with multiple females (Lions,bulls etc.). Also taking into account Sammyjo’s argument regarding “Multiple pregnant women = Multiple children” we must remember that a primary goal for all species is survival and therefore reproduction is better suited to a Single Male – Multiple Female Relationship.

However we are separated from the Animal Kingdom by a higher intellect and emotional awareness. This can play an important part in our interactions. Whereas the animal kingdom is driven by a primal instinct to mate, we examine our sexual interaction in a hue of emotions and with intellectual reasoning. Therefore my previous observations regarding the necessity of reproduction tend to fall short of the mark.

Also because of this higher emotional state a multiple partner relationship would take on extra strain because of the multi-dimensional facets of the relationship. I’ve yet to see or hear of a love triangle that lasts. Mr Jealousy and Mr Greed usually pay a visit sooner or later.

My personal feelings on the subject is that I would hate to have multiple female partners. On a sexual level , fantastic, but on an emotional level I can only give my love to a single person and I would also want to have that person love me exclusively. The price and reward of the human emotional construct.

With regards to the same sex marriage issue……. My sister is a homosexual and even although I disagree with her choice of Lifestyle I would fully support her if she wanted to get married to her partner. Love is Love and if 2 people want to create that special bond then I don’t think that is wrong. HOWEVER. What I am vehemently against and I will argue this point until I am blue in the face is homosexual couples wanting to have a child. NO WAY!!!!

If someone disagrees with me on this I would like to hear their opinion. If you can’t make the baby you don’t get the baby (this argument excludes infertile women in a male – female relationship). Obviously my reasons have slightly more substance than my last remedial statement but If anyone disagrees with me I would really like to hear their point of view before I launch into a 400 page tirade on why I object.

Thanks for listening

Hal

 

[Slut_boy]

Perhaps historically and anthropologically, polygamous unions could be justified by the procreation idea as discussed by Sammy. But with overpopulation what it is and resources put under pressure by too many people, one wonders whether the philosophical support for theory ought to be flexible enough to change with the changing needs of this planet.

[This message has been edited by slut_boy (edited 03-26-2000).]

 

[Sammyjo]

Actually, I don't see a problem with two (or one, for that matter) emotionally mature people raising a child, be they homosexual or heterosexual. I think that many children raised in a homosexual environment grow up to be well-rounded, "normal" individuals. Just as many children raised by one parent are. Given the proper upbringing all children are capable of exceeding our expectations of them. I don't think that it necessarily matters WHO those parents are.

Recently on a local radio show, they profiled a child who was raised by an adoptive family. His biological father was in prison for murder. This child was given every advantage in life, but still ended up on death row. What happened here? Biology. Plain and simple.

I know we will forever be arguing the nature vs. nurture issue. There will always be disagreements on that one. Is a person born homosexual or is it a choice? Can a person's DNA (genes) predetermine their place in this world? How do you explain the fact that twins separated at birth can have the exact same feelings at the same exact time? The questions go on and on. And this is slightly off topic, so I will stop here.

I think that as long as the person/s involved are emotionally prepared to handle all of the little intricasies of a relationship, things will run smoothly.

And although I wouldn't mind being catered to by many men, I don't think I could share my man with many women...then again...who knows?

 

[Gary1]

A hundred years ago, my grandfather joined the Mormon church. He married a gal from Sweden. She wanted her sister to come to the states and needed someone to support the sister. She talked my grandfather into a plural marriage. Legal in Utah at the time and supported by the Mormon church. That is until the Feds got involved and said that religious freedom didn't apply to polygamy.

Polygamy sure wasn't what it was cracked up to be. My poor grandfather couldn't win for losing. He was arrested, thrown in jail. Had to denounce the first wife and was buried by the second wife that he didn't really love at all, but felt morally obligated to support because of promises to the first wife. It was a shitty arrangement.

I often get kidded about my heritage. Who is related to who and through which wife. And then the outsider all say, "Wow, two wives, what a lucky stiff." I can't handle one wife and it has taken three marriages and two divorces to come to some semblance of a balanced marriage at that. But two wives ... no fuckin way. You would have to be an idiot, mentally incompetetent, or deluded in some type of religious bullshit. I would just as soon pay for a bit of sex on the side every once in a while than get caught in that bear trap. Diatribe at it's best... just my opinion.

 

[Fallen Angel]

I personally don't see anything wrong with multiple marriages but feel that it is a lot like juggling. Most folks can juggle one ball with out too much problem, two is a little harder, but the difficulty of keeping extra balls in the air increases by multiplying instead of adding. The same principle I think applies to relationships.

I have known several gays and gay couples who were alot more stable than many of the "normal" couples that were raising kids. Being able to produce a child in no way makes you a good parent. Raising a kid, caring for it, teaching it to get along in society, loving it no matter what, those are some of the things that make you a good parent. Thank goodness god made children tough. I have seen some really good kids come from some really bad homes. Most of them given half a chance will develop into their own person, their parent's input being only one of many things influencing their final makeup as a grownup.

Back on topic, I would be willing to consider a sacond wife and family if I could ever make more money than the one I have could spend.

Many of the societies/experiments in the past with multipule marriages were based on economic factors. As the men controlled the money, then if they could afford more wifes and wanted them it became so.

 

[Sammyjo]

Your grandfather was thrown in jail because of it? Christ, half of my grandfather's family is Mormon, and three of them have multiple marriages as we speak. I wonder what the deal is there. Supposedly, all multiples performed before a certain date were still legal, and the government couldn't touch them. I'll have to do a bit more research I guess...but my sister just married a Mormon and that was what she was taught. Though, I do know that they still perform them in the "back-woods"...they aren't LEGAL marriages, recognized by law, but they are recognized by the church...it's called Jack Mormon (or something)

Anyways, I'm not up on the history of it, but just thought that it was weird that he would be arrested.

 

[Jasdf]

Personally, I think that 1 husband or wife with multiple spouses would be an unstable situation. However, I think that a group marriage with approximately equal numbers of people of both sexes would be much more stable. There would be the added benefit that if one parent died or left the marriage, there would still be a large family to support the children. It might actually be more stable than a two person marriage because spouses who didn’t get along or were fighting could associate with other of their spouses, rather than getting involved in affairs which could ruin the marriage. A group marriage would make sense socially, and wouldn’t (I think) end up with more children per parent than a “normal” marriage would.
On the question of homosexual couples having children, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to. Although I am heterosexual, many of my friends are bi or homosexual. Often, there relations seem more stable and loving than those between heterosexuals. In response to Hal’s “If you can’t make the baby you don’t get the baby.” argument I say that it doesn’t matter if you can make the baby, it matters if you can take care of the baby. We already have too many people who can make a baby but not take care of it, why not let the couples who can take care of but not make a baby raise these children?
Well, that’s my point of view anyway.
--Jasdf

 

[Weird Harold]

Originally posted by gary1:
... That is until the Feds got involved and said that religious freedom didn't apply to polygamy.

Polygamy sure wasn't what it was cracked up to be. My poor grandfather couldn't win for losing. He was arrested, thrown in jail. ...

It sounds as if polygamy wasn't the problem. Government interference in what might have been a happy arrangement without that interference seems to have been the problem.

 

[Weird Harold]

An interesting discussion from amny moons ago

I'm tired of beating the dead horse of educational reform so let's try this question again. I don't think it's been brought up again since this thread from 2000

 

[lisalove]

I wouldn't mind a polygamous arrangement.

The only question is who to be, the Queen or the Nymph?

 

[ScarlettRose]

http://small-world.netfirms.com/articles/polyandry.htm

looking for better articles on this history, but this is what i found so far on polyandry

 

[deliciously_naughty]

While I have practiced polyamory (having more than one relationship at a time) I am not sure where I would stand on the whole polagamy/polyandry issue. I wouldn't want more than one husband (and let's face it girls, considering how annoying one man can be, would I really want to multiply it by any factor?). I also don't know how I would feel about being one of several wives. Ignoring the legality (it is illegal right now...there was at least one court case in the last three years over it, specifically I can remember one in Utah just b/c it was so stereotypical of what people want to believe about pologamy...ie the family was on welfare, the youngest "wife" was under 18, etc) of being in a plural marriage, I would worry about how one would finance such a marriage. As a bisexual woman, I would also feel cheated if I didn't get another woman too.

I think that I would be happiest in a marriage that allowed for the option of an occasional lover, but not another serious relationship. If I get married at all....but that's another thread entirely


As for Hal's comments about if "you can't make the baby, you don't get the baby", but then qualifying it with a hypocritical statement (that it doesn't count for straight couples unable to produce a child) I would suggest starting another thread on the topic. I think you're an idiot, and I'd be happy to go into a 400 page diatribe (to quote you) as to why you're wrong, but not on this particular thread. All I will say is that being straight or gay is not a good enough qualifier for the priveledge of becoming a parent. In fact it should be the least of our concerns. Does a crack addict woman deserve the baby she conceived out of a one night stand deserve that child more because she is straight that a well educated gay couple who could provide a wonderful home for that baby? I think not. Start the thread and pm me and we'll go at it.

 

[intrigued]

Good Topic Wierd Harold

I will just start by saying that I’ve never heard of the terms polyandry or polygamy but I hope I’ve gleaned there meaning correctly and used them in the correct context. (I’m still busy looking for a dictionary – I’m stupid and have a small vocabulary).

There are many angles from which to examine these questions.

To start I would like to state an obvious fact. We are animals. A far more advanced form of animal but a creature of nature.

With that in mind I think that the argument for a male having multiple mates seems to be less “offensive” than a female with multiple partners. I.e looking at nature there are a plethora of examples of males with multiple females (Lions,bulls etc.). Also taking into account Sammyjo’s argument regarding “Multiple pregnant women = Multiple children” we must remember that a primary goal for all species is survival and therefore reproduction is better suited to a Single Male – Multiple Female Relationship.

However we are separated from the Animal Kingdom by a higher intellect and emotional awareness. This can play an important part in our interactions. Whereas the animal kingdom is driven by a primal instinct to mate, we examine our sexual interaction in a hue of emotions and with intellectual reasoning. Therefore my previous observations regarding the necessity of reproduction tend to fall short of the mark.

Also because of this higher emotional state a multiple partner relationship would take on extra strain because of the multi-dimensional facets of the relationship. I’ve yet to see or hear of a love triangle that lasts. Mr Jealousy and Mr Greed usually pay a visit sooner or later.

My personal feelings on the subject is that I would hate to have multiple female partners. On a sexual level , fantastic, but on an emotional level I can only give my love to a single person and I would also want to have that person love me exclusively. The price and reward of the human emotional construct.

With regards to the same sex marriage issue……. My sister is a homosexual and even although I disagree with her choice of Lifestyle I would fully support her if she wanted to get married to her partner. Love is Love and if 2 people want to create that special bond then I don’t think that is wrong. HOWEVER. What I am vehemently against and I will argue this point until I am blue in the face is homosexual couples wanting to have a child. NO WAY!!!!

If someone disagrees with me on this I would like to hear their opinion. If you can’t make the baby you don’t get the baby (this argument excludes infertile women in a male – female relationship). Obviously my reasons have slightly more substance than my last remedial statement but If anyone disagrees with me I would really like to hear their point of view before I launch into a 400 page tirade on why I object.

Thanks for listening

Hal

With the exception of your last paragraph, which I am undecided on, but leaning towards the belief that where there is love, children thrive, you said it so very well. Wow. I am now adding you to my list of those whose mind I would like to make love to.

 

[scrymettet]

As far as the people involved

are happy in it, any form is good as the next one.
For exemple of marriage engineering, check R.A.Heinlein books :
"The moon is a harsh mistress" and "Friday"

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: As far as the people involved

are happy in it, any form is good as the next one.
For exemple of marriage engineering, check R.A.Heinlein books :
"The moon is a harsh mistress" and "Friday"

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14593 is a athread I started based on one of R.A.H.'s premises in To Sail Beyond The Sunset which is also a good example of multiple styles of marriage -- primarily group marriage but others forms are mentioned too.

 

[scrymettet]

Re: Re: As far as the people involved

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14593 is a athread I started based on one of R.A.H.'s premises in To Sail Beyond The Sunset which is also a good example of multiple styles of marriage -- primarily group marriage but others forms are mentioned too.

The stranger in a strange land family/group was not bad neither