Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mudcat

Polygamy: What are the Pro's and Con's

75 posts in this topic

Pro for the women, not having to put up with the husband as much, being able to dump him off on one of the other sister wives.

Cons for the man: never getting a break having more contradictory commandments to obey, having to perform his husbandly duty more often without a chance to recharge.

0

Share this post


Link to post

For you, Mudcat, I'll trust the integrity of this thread.

Cons: Extremely difficult to live in our imperfect mortal state. Impossible to successfully live in a Godless society. Human frailties and weaknesses could potentially run amok.

Some men would take unrighteous advantage of the situation. Potential abuse and neglect, loneliness and depression. But then this sometimes occurs in monogamous marriages.

Pros: Since we believe that eternal marriage is an essential ordinance for the Celestial Kingdom, then it affords it to everyone. That's pretty huge. In a more perfected Christlike state, we women would love our sisters so much that we couldn't bare to see any of them alone.

When handled properly, one can learn to love as Christ loves, without jealousies and envy. Extreme lessons in service, generosity, and trust in God.

I have not progressed to a point where I am willing to share my husband. I cannot even conceive of it. I believe that we will never be required to do anything we are not willing to do. So I don't worry about it. Someday I'll understand it better. Till then, I'll just trust God and know that He loves me and only wants me to be happy.

Edited by Brenda
0

Share this post


Link to post

This is true. On top of women being able to bring income and her own personal financial control into the home we should probably also factor in the fact that today's reality includes birth control which alleviates some of the sting of trying to compete for attention for their children. Any 21st century scenario likely takes all of the fun out of polygamy for the man....except for the endorsed multiple sexual partners scenario which I see few men complaining about.

I think Juliann's view is correct, but your assertion that a 21st century scenario takes the fun out of it for the man is incorrect. I see this situation described by Juliann in monogamous relationships in today's world in families that are childless and the woman is the main bread winner. The man's main job is to protect the assets of the woman and add a bit of excitement to an otherwise dull life. It's not bad being a trophy husband, I don't have to work, my wife doesn't like it when I work but she would never have jumped on sailboat and sailed halfway around the world without my instigation. We're not wealthy but we can make do on her assets alone. One of my best friends is in a similar situation but his wife makes mega bucks and she would have led a dull life had she not married him. He taught her how to enjoy life. We are the "E ticket" ride at Disneyland.

edited to add: When I say I don't work, that just means 9-5. I work at keeping the people, house, cars and boat in working order. It's a new situaton for me and I'm struggling with the fact that I'm more valuable at home rather than working for money.

Edited by rodheadlee
0

Share this post


Link to post

Pro. Many men (and even some women) suffer from Multiple partner attraction (It's similar to SSA but doesn't have the same support) and as such many men (and some women) live a polygamous lifestyle already. By recognizing these unions we protect the children that result from them.

Yes it would suck for an employer to have to provide insurance/ benefits to more family members due to polygamous unions. But it is even more a crime that these kids and extra "wives" go without such benefits.

Generally speaking a married family (I.E. Husband, wife, kids) provides more stability then not(I.E. Father Baby mama, kid) so i think naturally legal polygamy(Husband, wife, wife, kids) would provide more stability then the (Husband, wife, kid from marriage, mistress, kid on the side) polygamous unions we see today.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Pro's- Ceeboo ;)

Con's- Ceeboo's wife :P

Peace,

Ceeboo

0

Share this post


Link to post

I find it interesting that many women seem to think that the only or main motivation for God authorized plural marriage is sex for the male. I daresay this is evidence that such women have poor sex lives and/or are used to using sex as a weapon against their husbands which is more difficult to accomplish in a plural marriage situation. It also shows an almost apostate level of disbelief in the scriptures and the prophets.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Pros... More than one wife.

Con... More than one mother-in-law. Sorry mom old joke. I actually love you very much, and not just because you produced such a wonderful daughter. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for all the input from posters so far. Likely towards the wind down of the thread I will try to compile all responses in to some sort of pro/con list for posterity's sake.

I don't agree with notion of polygamy but I am trying to be objective as I can on the matter. At least for me, I am trying to separate religious belief from it for the moment.

Some Con's

1A. A diminished gene pool. One male producing offspring from many females could potentially have positive impact if his traits were dominant through his offspring and also if his passed on traits had positive impact. However if he had undesirable traits that were dominant it would be a detriment. Regardless, if the number of reproductive males were reduced and the number of reproductive females were status quo or even increased it would lead to the potentiality of 1B.

1B. Potential for incest over time. In a grouping, where only a small number of males were reproductive and also the same number or more of females were reproductive then it would stand to reason that given that many offspring genes would be attributed to only a small number of males and the propensity of inbreeding would increase. A number of diseases are associated with such actions so this would also be a con worth consideration.

2. All your eggs in one basket is a bad thing. To clarify. In a situation where a number of females maintain relations with a single man, it should be taken into consideration that males live shorter lives. At some point, all females associated with such a male run the risk their children being raised without a biological father.

To give an example, a man with 20 wives and 60 children dies at the age of 35. His oldest child is 15 and his youngest is 6 months. Either 20 women and their children(average 3 per female) must find a mate who will sustain them and their children, or they must go it alone or some other permutation.

Those are a couple that come to mind, but I may add more later. Thanks again for your responses.

Mudcat, you are still unable to think beyond politically repressive societies. Make yourself focus on today. When you think of polygamy you have to think of your neighbors not compounds or 19th century culture and law.

If I was to engage in this there would be a prenup with all partners. My assets would be protected. I would be in no worse situation with the death of the husband than I am now. There would have to be members paid to manage the household. Only men see that as an unpaid position. You must remember that in today's society this would look more like a business arrangement than a honeymoon. We have airplanes and cars now. There is no reason families would even need to be in the same state so gene pools aren't necessarily revelant. And paternity would be known unlike today when affairs cover it up. If the families were in close proximity, however, the financial advantages could be huge. Imagine what you would save if you shared items with neighbors. There wouldnt' have to be as many cars and tools. It would function as a co-op (with the man included as goods, unfortunately). The only way a man could hope to retain control is through money and he would have to be very, very rich.

A con would be how to manage divorce. Since women will have a larger voting block they will probably make sure men are not allowed to abandon families and if they do they will spend every cent they will ever have on support.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I find it interesting that many women seem to think that the only or main motivation for God authorized plural marriage is sex for the male. I daresay this is evidence that such women have poor sex lives and/or are used to using sex as a weapon against their husbands which is more difficult to accomplish in a plural marriage situation. It also shows an almost apostate level of disbelief in the scriptures and the prophets.

It would be very entertaining to see you in a polygamous marriage.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I find it interesting that many women seem to think that the only or main motivation for God authorized plural marriage is sex for the male. I daresay this is evidence that such women have poor sex lives and/or are used to using sex as a weapon against their husbands which is more difficult to accomplish in a plural marriage situation. It also shows an almost apostate level of disbelief in the scriptures and the prophets.

That makes no sense. Believe it or not, there are women who like having sex with their husbands and are upset by the idea of only getting to sleep with them maybe once a week. It's offensive to suggest that her main gripe would be not getting to use sex against him.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I find it interesting that many women seem to think that the only or main motivation for God authorized plural marriage is sex for the male. I daresay this is evidence that such women have poor sex lives and/or are used to using sex as a weapon against their husbands which is more difficult to accomplish in a plural marriage situation. It also shows an almost apostate level of disbelief in the scriptures and the prophets.

Which female posters here thought that the only or main motivation for God authorized plural marriage is sex for the male?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Think of the bee. He flies from flower to flower to flower.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Mudcat, you are still unable to think beyond politically repressive societies. Make yourself focus on today. When you think of polygamy you have to think of your neighbors not compounds or 19th century culture and law.

Hey Juliann!!!

Long time no see, hope your doing well. You have got a few others on the thread that seem to share your sentiment on the matter, such as Glen101. I have put some thought into this over the course of the evening and today... just haven't had much PC time. You seem to promoting the notion that 21st century polygamy in countries that are free to some degree from the political repression of women, would be imply a drastically different dynamic. I think you may be correct in that, but as of yet am uncertain as to what that dynamic would be.

Hopefully, you won't consider me too close minded for using what you seem to think is an outmoded view. From what I can gather, those cultures that do endorse polygamy are still entrenched in such modes. If there is currently a modern culture in that respect, that does practice polygamy, I confess to having no knowledge of it. Even this current thing going on in Canada seems a bit archaic IMO.

But using Canada as an example, lets say they push it through and polygamy is legally sanctioned.. or even lets say it is sanctioned in the US as well. I would think for certain, that those cultures that currently operate in an outmoded view in other countries that practice polygamy, would then just simply institute the same practices that were in place. The only caveat being that the repression of women in such areas would have less of a barb to it because even though the veil of political repression would be removed, social and cultural forces would likely be brought to bear. IMO, if polygamy were given a pass legally in free nations, likely the ones who would practice it would be the same groups that have done so in other countries and they would do it for the same reasons, for the most part.

However, the concept of an emergent group of people who embraced this concept with a modern perspective is interesting. I suppose I am still trying to determine why exactly someone would choose such a course.

If I was to engage in this there would be a prenup with all partners. My assets would be protected. I would be in no worse situation with the death of the husband than I am now. There would have to be members paid to manage the household. Only men see that as an unpaid position. You must remember that in today's society this would look more like a business arrangement than a honeymoon. We have airplanes and cars now. There is no reason families would even need to be in the same state so gene pools aren't necessarily revelant. And paternity would be known unlike today when affairs cover it up. If the families were in close proximity, however, the financial advantages could be huge. Imagine what you would save if you shared items with neighbors. There wouldnt' have to be as many cars and tools. It would function as a co-op (with the man included as goods, unfortunately). The only way a man could hope to retain control is through money and he would have to be very, very rich.

The only benefit I would see here, would be financial gains. Perhaps homes would be larger, but certainly a need for less appliances and so forth in holistic sense. A man and four women would need only 1 vacuum instead of four.. and so forth. I wonder how much room there is for love in a business relationship of this sort. But a good bit of this sort of ideology is based on a matriarchal background.

I imagine, you would find patriarchy also viable for such a situation, but as you seem to suggest, this would be a wealth driven patriarchy. Surely there would be a trade of on some emotional respect for financial security.

I also wonder how this dynamic would impact the rearing of children. However, in this sort of eclectic type setting, it may be likely that there would be limited children. If financial gain is a motive of sorts for such a relationship, in modern society children are often considered financial siphons of income and large families may be considered unproductive in that respect.

I would think that emotional trade offs would be significant. Also, I wonder if woman might adopt a mentality that 25% of a good man is better than 100% of a bad one or none at all.

A con would be how to manage divorce. Since women will have a larger voting block they will probably make sure men are not allowed to abandon families and if they do they will spend every cent they will ever have on support.

Certainly worthy of consideration. Again, I hope you don't think I am being to close minded on the matter. It is just that much of what is being discussed is fairly speculative in regards to what polygamy would look like in a modern setting.

Kind Regards,

Mudcat

0

Share this post


Link to post

I see only pros. First, the children will have more than one mom. That can only be a benefit. Second, the wives are a small community of sisters where each wife supports the other. Third, more love in the family can not be a bad thing at all. Fourth, the polygamous family becomes of small community where the support is tremendous in a life that can seem very individualistic. Fifth, the man is important as father and helpful provider but the polygamous family is placing the women at the center and the man is is a conduit but an important one.

I see no negatives.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Which female posters here thought that the only or main motivation for God authorized plural marriage is sex for the male?

Most men have been corrupted by the pornofication of modern society. LDS men are no different. But like I said, I see only pros if all is done well and it is family centered. Most men are not studs on the prowl regardless of the sensual implications in our lifeworld. They just want to come home, play with the kids and watch baseball.

0

Share this post


Link to post

why me:

All males and females have a intrinsic need for love and acceptance by a significant other. Polygamy would of necessity prescribe a certain level of rejection and emotional abandonment.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Pros: Variety

Cons: I believe multiple wives would take away from the intimate relationship that would develop between husband and wife in a monogamous relationship. I also abhor the shallow "you are for making babies" role polygyny can place a woman in.

You have missed the point. Polygamy is about family. It is a place where love can bloom as in a regular family. But more of it. The children become apart of such a love. Polygamy is about family as a community of souls. Do you think that the guy can make only babies? Most are tired after a days work and really just want to relax. Now the women? Well, they may have something different on their minds.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Think of the bee. He flies from flower to flower to flower.

It's the female bee that goes from flower to flower to flower. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
why me:

All males and females have a intrinsic need for love and acceptance by a significant other. Polygamy would of necessity prescribe a certain level of rejection and emotional abandonment.

To be fair though, it would mainly be males who suffer, as more of them will be unable to marry in a polygamous society. All the women could easily have the potential to be blessed with a husband.

0

Share this post


Link to post

why me:

All males and females have a intrinsic need for love and acceptance by a significant other. Polygamy would of necessity prescribe a certain level of rejection and emotional abandonment.

Maybe. But maybe not. In a polygamous relationship, people bond together to support the family, especially the children. The man who should be loving the women equally will need to do a balancing act but when all understand the principle it can work just fine. But yes, just like in a regular marriage complications can show themselves. It is only natural.

0

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair though, it would mainly be males who suffer, as more of them will be unable to marry in a polygamous society. All the women could easily have the potential to be blessed with a husband.

In modernity, people believe that the women suffer. Far from it. It is the man that suffers. The women in a polgyamous relationship have the other wives and children for support. The man can stand alone at times. Also, in in these times, most think of man and sex and just how lucky he is. Far from it especially as he get older. Time is against him.

0

Share this post


Link to post

and I would always wonder about any possible STD's the other wives are bringing home. So many complicated things to consider.

Do you really think that the other wives would be messing around if they understood the principle of eternity and eternal marriage? I don't think so. But yes, the cuddling would suffer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Do you really think that the other wives would be messing around if they understood the principle of eternity and eternal marriage? I don't think so. But yes, the cuddling would suffer.

The question of generic polygyny v. LDS (or other religion-based) polygyny is what we are discussing.

In a non-religious polygynous marriages (and even within), there is no guarantee of fidelity. But, there is no such guarantee in monogynous families, either. So, it's a wash on those grounds.

Lehi

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think the topic of polygamy is probably the best indicator of how men view women. And it's not looking good. I'm really curious where those who refuse to live in the present are going to find all these little prairie wives they project into their future? Are you going to import them from third world countries?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.