Polygamy

[vison]

Marriage is a committment. But the committment was not necessarily made by the two people getting married: the contract was often between fathers.

Still, most marriages worked, because they HAD to.

That's not true now. I don't think it's a good thing, either.

But then . . . . some marriages should be broken up.

[MithLuin]

Well, quite - pointing to the healthy staying power of marriage in "days gone by" often ignores those who were economically trapped in an abusive situation. Both sets of my grandparents had what I could only term unhappy marriages, and both of them have stayed together until death (in one case) and until over the age of 80 (in the other). My Mom always said she was proud of her parents for staying together despite their hardships (which included, but were not limited to, poverty, disparate ages, alcoholism, strikes at work, verbal abuse and [temporary] separation).

But I refuse to believe that 50% of all marriages in the US are abusive.

There has to be a way to create a situation where those who need to get out, can....but at the same time, tell people who are having other issues, "go talk to a counselor, not a lawyer." Readily-available divorce does undermine marriage - talk to anyone who is entering into a marriage. They will tell you that those statistics are sobering, and cause for doubts and concern - are we really gonna make it? I don't mean just as statistics, of course - but if both people who are getting married have parents who are divorced...well, they look at that and say, well, that could be us in 20 years.....

I am not advocating unhappy marriages. Merely saying....the solution to an unhappy marriage is not necessarily to dissolve it. There are plenty of serious situations to which the correct response is - get out and never look back. You know, if you find out your spouse is a drug dealer for the Russian mob, or your spouse kills one of your children, or....lots of very good reasons.

As for the consent issue....my mythical medieval spokesperson would not necessarily understand why the wills of the youths involved would be any different from the wills of their parents. Meaning - the family was expected to act together, with a common goal. Even in the case of an arranged marriage, the son and the daughter are accepting and affirming the choice of their parents by consenting to it. Of course, I don't see it that way....but if I were to say, "the two people must consent of their own free will," this medieval person is going to sit there and nod along with what I say. Weird...but I'm pretty sure that's how they thought about it.

[axordil]

Arranged marriages make more sense in pre-industrial societies, where they are predominately tools of property management. Since industrial societies have predominately liquid assets, there isn't the overriding need to keep estates from getting split too many ways, etc.

The alternative to divorce is, historically, de rigeur infidelity on the parts of both partners.

[Alatar]

To those who cite the argument that a marriage can only involve commitment form two people I would like to counter with the fact that many, if not most, marriages have more than two people involved. My commitment to my children is equal to or in fact supercedes my commitment to my wife. That does not weaken my love for her or my commitment to her. In the same way, if my marriage contained a third "partner" there is not necessarily any reason why that should invalidate my love for my wife, or hers for me.

Honestly this strikes me as simple prejudice. "I do not understand it, therefore it is false, or at the least inferior". Without a strong example otherwise I see no reason why a man or woman couldn't have two soulmates, one who is a sexual partner and one who is an intellectual and emotional partner. After all, that relationship exists in thousands of marriages worldwide. It simply hasn't been legally recognised.

[baby tuckoo]

Master Alatar makes a very good point.

The legal exclusivity of one mate for both genders may well be a reaction to the cruel possessiveness of the pre-dna days when a man sought to be sure of his parentage. He essentially had to lock the woman up. The expectation in the other direction is less: a woman knows she is the mother 'cause she was there at the birth. If I can have sex with a string of worthy donars, I shall, says the truly emancipated woman. Identity of the father may or may not matter. Let their sperm fight it out.

If a harem in reverse were the norm in the past generation, the current (more evolved) generation would demand redress by law for men. In a society fresh with egalitarian principles, it would come to pass.

Marriage of one to one became legally sacred in the western world. A violation of it was called "adultery." Wow, that's a term I've never understood.

[PrinceAlarming]

I'm a man who is against polygamy. From a stricly scientific point of view. Male promiscuity has been degrading the Y chromosome for a long time. Now it's a barely recognizable clump of genetic material. To much polygamy and promiscuity. Soon men will be a distant memory.

And the women rejoice.

http://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=491

[baby tuckoo]

Sorry, Prince, I have a little trouble connecting your dots here.

[Jnyusa]

Clever, Prince Alarming!




think faster, bt

[PrinceAlarming]

Yay genetics!

[baby tuckoo]

Bravo, genetics, indeed. But I went not to the link. What did the original post say?

[Jnyusa]

That was the original post, bt. Sorry if I misled you.

Prince Alarming is making a joke about the condition of the Y chromosome described in the article, blaming it on too many generations of polygamy and promiscuity.

That's not the real reason for the status of the Y chromosome of course, which is what made it funny.

Jn

[Hachimitsu]

very OT:
Mahima, do you think there would be books available on The Mahabharata in North America? A friend of mine was telling me about The Mahabharata and I thought I might give it a look.


About polygamy, from what I understand, in theory it's for economic reasons, but somewhere the value of women got lost. I have heard of polyandry and I had heard it was practiced in Tibet. On one travel program I ran into, a backpacker in Tibet was invited to a wedding and there they explained the bride was marrying 5 guys ranging in ages from 5 to 18. The bride was 16. (The backpacker look of shock while trying to stay polite was something else) the 5 year old of course did not know what was going on and was playing with the brides tassels on her wedding outfit. The guide explained to the traveller guy that some of the grooms would try and make a go at a life with the wife but some it may not work out or even happen and the guys would probably just move on and get married again. Considering a 5 year old is involved it seemd clear that basically the bride was really there to look after him. Only the bride and the oldest 2 grooms took the wedding ceremony seriously.

The thought of marrying 5 guys makes me think I would run away and change my name.

So in theory polygamy would be sort of OK but now especially in creepy Noth American version of it, it seems really degrading and horriffically exploitive of everyone except the one husband. I have even heard of the young hot guys getting kicked out of the community since the old guys feel threatened and are afraid the women/girls they want will run to marry the young hot guys and the older guys could lose control over the community.

In Islamic law a man is not allowed more then 4 wives. On top of that they have to do justice to each marriage. A man just can't collect 4 women and treat them bad. If he did that the wives would have grounds for divorce. ( Who can do justice to 4 marriages let alone 1? ) In some places in Africa women would look to get a muslim husband since they knew he was bound by his religion to treat his wife well and if he didn't the woman actually had some rights. Depending on the various african cultures the womans rights in marriage may not be so ... pronounced I guess one could say .

Unfortunatly depending on the region of the muslim world (from what I have learned) a woman may not find out her rights in marriage, and learn only the part about man having 4 wives. In some cases it being construed as something a man is entitled to (as in, the whole "doing justice to each marriage" part gets ignored).

EDIT: To add a thought and fix spelling

[superwizard]

I would just like to add that in Islam husbands are encouraged to take one wife and to only take more for certain reason.

What the Quranic decrees amount to, taken together, is a discouragement of polygamy unless necessity for it exists.

It is also evident that the general rule in Islam is monogamy and not polygamy. However, permission to practice limited polygamy is only consistent with Islam’s realistic view of the nature of man and women and of the various social needs, problems, and cultural variations.

(found from http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy5.htm

[Túrin Turambar]

Note also that Islam has a definate spectrum of behaviours, from mandatory through encouraged, permitted, discouraged and forbidden. Just because something is allowed does not mean that it is viewed as good (eg: divorce).