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

[juliann]

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.

[thesometimesaint]

Eric Blob:

True, by definition polygamy's bad side effects would mainly fall on the male. Unfortunately the most dangerous member of the human species is the unattached male. Marriage and family have most the civilizing effect on the male.

[SlackTime]

I vote we leave polygamy outlawed until we are after... say 65. I've been watching my mother-in-law try to care for a husband who is severely limited in mobility, multiple wives could take the strain off one wife, in fact, allow polyandry too, anything to allow more than one caregiver in a household so that when one was ill, there would be more than one providing help.

- SlackTime

[juliann]

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.

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

I appreciate your approach to the topic Mudcat. As for deciding on less than 100% of man... that has already happened. It is very acceptable to have children without marriage. So the only motivation for polygamy would be financial in today's world. I think the politically repressive societies are irrelevant. Their laws and abuse of women are the problem, polygamy is only a part of that. So I don't think a discussion on introducing that is anymore appropriate than a discussion of putting children back in factories.

I do think it will become legal once the precedent has been established by current changes in marriage laws.

[why me]

We are not perfect. But if plural marriage was sanctioned by god, you may be surprised just how good it can all work. But yes, since many are only focused on just how lucky the guy is to get all that whoopie, well, we are far from the principle. But we can not escape that the lds church did practice it and many on this forum are the direct result of it. I know that Dianaid on CAF has commented on her own ancestors and their practice of polygamy as church members. And it was positive for her ancestors, if I read her correctly.

[DH]

Pros

Men generally like it.

Cons

Women generally dislike it.

Edited to add:

One thing that might be a pro for the man could be a con for the woman. For example, how does dating work when you practice polygamy? For the man, you can get married and still do some window shopping and keeping an eye out for that 2nd or 3rd wife. I always wondered how this worked since I doubt a woman just showed up on the porch and said marry me.

Heehee!

[juliann]

We are not perfect. But if plural marriage was sanctioned by god, you may be surprised just how good it can all work. But yes, since many are only focused on just how lucky the guy is to get all that whoopie, well, we are far from the principle.

We are indeed very very far from "the principle". It is called the Manifesto.

But we can not escape that the lds church did practice it and many on this forum are the direct result of it. I know that Dianaid on CAF has commented on her own ancestors and their practice of polygamy as church members. And it was positive for her ancestors, if I read her correctly.

Of course the church practiced it. Of course individuals had individual experiences. But that isn't the topic of this thread.

[Ahab]

con: Adam and Eve. I think this is the best argument for monogamy. I believe that God modeled the ideal marriage in Adam and Eve. Polygamy, I believe, is a valid but inferior form of marriage.

Whistle, whistle.

Cheer, cheer.

Well said.

The only good reason I can think of for polygamy, or polygyny, is so each person who wants one can have a spouse, when otherwise someone would not have one, unless some people shared.

Ideally, though, I think each person should have his/her own spouse, without having to share, but the numbers have to be exactly equal for that to work out.

[cinepro]

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

"A girl is like a blossom, with honey for just one man. A man is like a honey bee and gather all he can. To fly from blossom to blossom a honey must be free. But blossom must not ever fly from bee to bee to bee."

- The King (from "The King And I")

[handys003]

PRO:

Well if I was a shogun lots of concubines for protection.

CON:

Wife would probably try to assassinate me

Ditto with roman emperor

[juliann]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061026170626.htm

Bees that have the misfortune of inheriting two identical copies of csd develop into sterile males but are quickly eaten at the larval stage by female worker bees. The system works fine in nature, where it prevents the colony from wasting precious energy and resources on abnormal males incapable of carrying out the all-important role of mating.

[JarMan]

I think Juliann is right when she says (if I understand her correctly) that many of the problems we see with polygamy are really problems with 19th Century America or of oppressive cultures around the world that practice it. Polygamy would look very different today in mainstream America. I don't see how it would be very advantageous to the vast majority of men. For one thing, it would be too darn expensive. There are much easier (and less expensive) ways to visit multiple flowers, as it were.

As a general principal, though, it does add options for forming families. And I think it could be economically advantageous for some women. I'm thinking of all of the single women with kids out there. When it comes down to it, though, I think there are very few people, women or men, who would find it advantageous.

[MorningStar]

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.

As it is, in monogamous eternal marriages, people stray sometimes. Bad enough worrying about one spouse straying. Having to worry about the other wives being tempted to go elsewhere would be even worse. Oh yeah, another factor would be feeling like you're being compared to the other wives in bed.

[staccato]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061026170626.htm

[yesucan2]

Kidding aside, I have given this some thought, and for polygamy to work within the framework of the expectations and goals of faithful LDS, it would require a very high standard and demand a lot of us as people to rise above.

This is not to say that a monogamous situation does not do the same, but I'm saying that I expect a successful polygamous situation would be even more so and require a high degree of maturity of its participants.

[why me]

As it is, in monogamous eternal marriages, people stray sometimes. Bad enough worrying about one spouse straying. Having to worry about the other wives being tempted to go elsewhere would be even worse. Oh yeah, another factor would be feeling like you're being compared to the other wives in bed.

I guess the point that I was trying to make was that polygamy is not about sex but about an eternal principle. As you know, many critics claim that Joseph Smith had a bout of extreme horniness when he began to take more than one wife. I don't believe that that is true. It was a principle that he needed to follow and implement.

We also need to remember that back then, people never met that many people. There was a small community of people but today, with the quickness of travel, people can meet many more people during a single day then back in the time of JS or BY. I suppose that this could mean more temptation as it does for a regular marriage.

[why me]

Kidding aside, I have given this some thought, and for polygamy to work within the framework of the expectations and goals of faithful LDS, it would require a very high standard and demand a lot of us as people to rise above.

This is not to say that a monogamous situation does not do the same, but I'm saying that I expect a successful polygamous situation would be even more so and require a high degree of maturity of its participants.

True enough. And it was the same for when polygamy was practiced by the saints. Problems developed and problems were solved. But sometimes they weren't. But a high standard was required and all had to keep their eye on the reasons it was being practiced.

[rodheadlee]

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.

It's not about control, it's about living in a community of true love. Nothing to do with sex. I would require my wives to love each other as much as I love my present wife. It's about thinking of the other person first and then yourself, just like Christ. The rest of the picture you paint is beautiful.

[staccato]

It's not about control, it's about living in a community of true love. Nothing to do with sex. I would require my wives to love each other as much as I love my present wife. It's about thinking of the other person first and then yourself, just like Christ. The rest of the picture you paint is beautiful.

You would require?!?

If the LDS polygamy were not about sex there would be no clause of eternal increase or "multiply and replenish the earth." By its very terms and conditions polygamy is about sex.

[staccato]

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.

I'm not sure which one is more insulting. The notion that a divine being has authorized plural marriage for sex or that he has authorized it to optimize the incubator capabilities of the female.

Nevertheless, I'll fully disclose that I do not believe either one is authorized by a divine being. I'll also own up to the fact that I like my daily sex as much as I do my daily shower, so any sister wives would just have to stand in line. Polygamy would definitely not work for me. Polyandry, however, I'd consider. Not for sexual reasons, however. Polyandry limits the output of children (the more children, the more work and expense which reduce quality of life) and having multiple streams of income from males, even in this day and age, is better than a multiple stream from females.

[juliann]

It's not about control, it's about living in a community of true love. Nothing to do with sex. I would require my wives to love each other as much as I love my present wife. It's about thinking of the other person first and then yourself, just like Christ. The rest of the picture you paint is beautiful.

You guys really have to get past the idea that you will be able to "require" anything unless you are planning to move to Saudi Arabia. The reason I think that won't happen is that polygamy then becomes as abhorrent to men as it is women. Polygamy is always discussed from a male fantasy perspective where women have no real choice and once they are corraled they have no real power or control over their actions and even their thoughts. To work, that requires a political and police environment where men hold all the power and control over women's lives. You will have to find that environment first.

[juliann]

True enough. And it was the same for when polygamy was practiced by the saints. Problems developed and problems were solved. But sometimes they weren't. But a high standard was required and all had to keep their eye on the reasons it was being practiced.

You will notice that this always returns to religion even though the OP specifically wants secular. Obviously, few women would do this unless there was a religious reason so it is necessary to keep returning to religion to keep the idea alive.

However, we have a BYU feminist, Valerie Hudson, who is taking a look at this from a scriptural point of view. It is one of those situations (somewhat like Will's KEP) where we have completely missed what has been there all along. Did you realize that Abraham's sacrifice is given as a reason for polygamy in D&C 132? So if you are going to continue with desire for more women in some future life you have to throw out Abraham's sacrifice as the model because if heaven is a place of eternal sacrifice for women then Abraham is going to be eternally sacrificing his son. And every Abrahamic sacrifice you have ever endured will also continue in your heaven. Polygamy was an Abrahamic sacrifice just as putting Isaac on the altar was or there is no reason for that incident to be showing up in the middle of polygamy discussion at all. Abraham was released by a ram in the thicket. Men and women have also been released.

[juliann]

If the LDS polygamy were not about sex there would be no clause of eternal increase or "multiply and replenish the earth." By its very terms and conditions polygamy is about sex.

You are quite right. That is why so many men can't quite seem to let go of the idea. If they visualized the reality instead it would be quite unpleasant. So I don't know which is worse, a bunch of men making a list for Santa or a bunch of men who can't come down to reality.

The other bad news for the "I've earned 28 virgins!" mentality is the scriptures. Another critical point Dr. Hudson points out is that the Lord never says the eternal increase is ours. It is clearly pronounced as the Lord's increase. It is all for Gods glory not the man who scored the most wives. He can sire children til the cows come home and not one of them will give him a bit of that glory he craves. We, the children, go back to Heavenly Father and Mother as brothers and sisters only.

[William James]

Thinking about Lehi's thread on polygamy being/not being abhorrent, I am wondering if the posters of this forum could help me compile a list of sorts.

If you have the time and proclivity. I am hoping you could submit what you think are the Pro's and Con's of polygamy.

There isn't much in the way of a definitive list on the net that I could find, so maybe we could generate one in this thread.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

It seems to me that the bulk of the criticism of what has erroneously been termed "polygamy" is really about non-egalitarian polygyny (one husband having multiple wives).

My position on the subject, which I have held for years now, is that both polygyny and polyandry should be legal, with the following conditions:

1. There must be capacity (persons who have a mental disability or who have not reached adulthood cannot competently agree to enter into such a relationship);

2. There must be informed consent, meaning that all partners must be aware of the arrangement before their consent to it is deemed valid;

3. The consent must be given in the absence of coercion or duress (including coercion exerted through the cloak of religious authority or position, i.e., a flaming angel told me this is what God commands, etc.);

4. There must be laws in place protecting the human rights and property rights of those involved, including children, so as to prevent abuse, neglect, etc.;

5. Individuals within the polygynous/polyandrous family must be free to terminate the relationship if so desired, with the condition that the divorce laws pertaining to such termination account for the continuing needs and responsibilities of the parties (i.e., alimony, child support, etc.).

In evaluating the pros and cons of polygyny as called for in the question, it is critical that we distinguish between coercive/non-egalitarian relationships and those entered in situations meeting the above criteria.

In non-egalitarian arrangements (which I consider deplorable and which should remain illegal the world around), there are admittedly some benefits which may flow, both to the women and the men. Many of these have been mentioned- comradery among wives, more sex for the man, built-in babysitters, pooling of economic resources, specialization of talents and abilities, etc. But the detriment is that we do violence to our human dignity, and elevate the man's worth and status above the women. Where polygyny may be coerced, especially in heirarchical religious societies, many men will also be excluded from the possibility of ever having an intimate relationship or marriage. And the women in the polygynous relationships will be oppressed and forced to accept circumstances which they did not voluntarily consent to.

But in the egalitarian setting, it is a whole different ballgame. If two men want to marry one woman, then they have little right to complain that she is unavailable for sex when she is intimate with the other one, because that is what they signed up for. Likewise, women who truly consented to a polygynous relationship are simply getting what they signed up for when they get less total attention from their husbands because he is spending time with one of his other wives. I believe that mature adults have to moral right to consent to whatever responsibly practiced marital arrangements they wish, with the conditions above, and neither God nor man should prohibit it. There may very well be diminished intimacy in a multiple-spouse situation, but it is up to individuals to decide whether that is something they can live with.

Come to think of it, it is rather strange that people would bother to debate the pros and cons of truly consensual polygamy among non-coerced adults, at least to the extent that it does not involve children and property rights. The sex/relationship aspects ought to be a no-brainer: of course it's fine in the egalitarian context! Those women or men who would not want to share a spouse need only refuse to enter into one of those relationships. Those competent, consenting adults who would be willing to share a spouse, on the other hand, of their own free will and choice, ought to be able to do so generally, and it is not any of our business to tell them they cannot.

[juliann]

Come to think of it, it is rather strange that people would bother to debate the pros and cons of truly consensual polygamy among non-coerced adults, at least to the extent that it does not involve children and property rights.

It probably needs to be debated more until eveyone is shaken out of their reverie that having additional spouses means that the 21st century will disappear or we will all be moving into an FLDS compound. It is not just strange that so few can get past that it is bizarre.

I still see divorce as the biggest problem and there will likely be more of it in such a situation. We can protect individual assets to some extent but some will be community property. Thus, you won't be divorcing one person you will be divorcing several because the "head of household" is no longer the controller and owner of all assets. So it seems all parties would have to give up a share of community property. Current law doesn't cover this but it will eventually have to.