What exactly Is Wrong with Polygamy anyway?

[Moksha]

Crafty polygamists try this one weird trick: Inflatable wives.

[Meadowchik]

I'm talking about Joseph Smith, the doctrine and covenants, and the people since then and until now who use both as sources to legitimize abusive forms of polygamy.

Meadowchik, you can talk about that as much as you want, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about legitimizing non-abusive forms of polygamy.

If that's the case you could have omitted your reference to the LDS in your OP. Also, it would be helpful to not dismiss criticism of the Mormon polygamy as mere attempts to score points. Because ultimately, the most fundamental enduring flaws of Mormonism began with it's polygamy.

Aside from that I would say that a roadblock to consenting, no abusive polygamy is that it seems legally complicated.

[Physics Guy]

If you want to talk on Mormon Discussions about a modern form of polygamy that has nothing to do with anything Mormon, then you're going to have to be a lot clearer about that distinction.

Historical Mormon polygamy really existed so there is a lot to say about it, and a lot of people here know useful stuff about it. An unrelated hypothetical modern form of polygamy is harder for anyone to discuss usefully. So the gravitational pull away from a topic on which no-one can say much, towards one that holds more interest for many here, cannot just be ignored. You have to be very front-and-center about your specific focus on a non-Mormon, non-historical, hypothetical topic, in spite of the board's usual focus on Mormonism.

What is there to say about modern polygamy, anyway? There are no laws about how many consenting adults can live together or about which of them can have sex with whom. There are no limits on what contracts they can collectively sign for sharing income and property. People may have their own wishes for or against polyamory, and may even have opinions about whether polyamory is a good idea for others, but there is no specific social institution to discuss, here, either way.

Should governments create such a new social institution of polygamous marriage? That would mean making new laws about spousal support, child support, child custody, alimony, parental consent, division of marital property in case of divorce, entitlement to spousal benefits from employers, and doubtless much more. What happens when a marriage of seven with eleven children, occupying two houses and driving five cars, wants to divorce into three smaller groups? Do the biological parents have stronger claims in child custody disputes, or do non-biological-parent marital partners count as adoptive parents? Can a foreigner acquire citizenship by becoming an eleventh spouse?

Polyamory is a currently feasible lifestyle, and anyone who wants to pursue it is free to do so, for any reasons they may have. So what's to discuss about it?

Modern polygamous marriage, as a new legal institution, would be a huge can of worms. There are probably only one or two people on these boards who could have anything to say on these legal topics that would be worth reading by anyone else. So what's to discuss about it?

And what else could there be to discuss, about modern polygamy?

[KevinSim]

Admittedly I don't understand the question. Who knows if the first wife is exploited by the husband before he marries another? My guess is if he moves to marry another woman, he's already doing some exploitation of his wife (using her to his own advantage). no one says a man can't exploit his wife. My point is simply, men have been given certain privilege in our world and can easily exploit women. A man marrying 2 women is a pretty sure sign that exploitation of women is happening. I'm not saying it's not possible two women can't agree to marry one man and somehow it works out well for them.

So you're saying that it's possible a monogamous man might exploit his wife, and it's possible such a man might not exploit his wife; and it's possible a polygamous man might exploit one (or both?) of his wives, and it's possible he won't exploit either; and therefore monogamy is better than polygamy? How does that follow?

I'm suggesting in this hypothetical of one man marrying two women, it is most likely that exploitation of women is happening. That'll always be the rule, i'd think.

Dastardly Stem, your argument seems to come down to M (the rate at which monogamous husbands exploit their wives) is less than P (the rate at which polygamous husbands exploit their wives). But S (the rate at which single women get abused by their non-existent husbands) is even smaller than M; in fact it's zero. So does that mean we should prohibit monogamous marriage too, since S is less than M? If not, then why not?

[KevinSim]

Doctor Steuss, you're saying that two or more people will never get more than 100%?

In regards to spousal support/effort/benefits/partnership/intimacy, yes.

Okay; I think I understand what you're saying.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Admittedly I don't understand the question. Who knows if the first wife is exploited by the husband before he marries another? My guess is if he moves to marry another woman, he's already doing some exploitation of his wife (using her to his own advantage). no one says a man can't exploit his wife. My point is simply, men have been given certain privilege in our world and can easily exploit women. A man marrying 2 women is a pretty sure sign that exploitation of women is happening. I'm not saying it's not possible two women can't agree to marry one man and somehow it works out well for them.

So you're saying that it's possible a monogamous man might exploit his wife, and it's possible such a man might not exploit his wife; and it's possible a polygamous man might exploit one (or both?) of his wives, and it's possible he won't exploit either; and therefore monogamy is better than polygamy? How does that follow?

I'm suggesting in this hypothetical of one man marrying two women, it is most likely that exploitation of women is happening. That'll always be the rule, i'd think.

Dastardly Stem, your argument seems to come down to M (the rate at which monogamous husbands exploit their wives) is less than P (the rate at which polygamous husbands exploit their wives). But S (the rate at which single women get abused by their non-existent husbands) is even smaller than M; in fact it's zero. So does that mean we should prohibit monogamous marriage too, since S is less than M? If not, then why not?

Where did DS make that argument (the highlighted portion)? And if he didn’t, it’s poor form to put words into his mouth. Also, strawmen are generally frowned upon within a good faith exchange, wouldn’t you agree?

- Doc

[dastardly stem]

So you're saying that it's possible a monogamous man might exploit his wife, and it's possible such a man might not exploit his wife; and it's possible a polygamous man might exploit one (or both?) of his wives, and it's possible he won't exploit either; and therefore monogamy is better than polygamy? How does that follow?

I've already alluded to this. I'd say its more likely a man is exploiting women if he's married to more than one than if he's married to just one. I do say it's possible, as any reasonable person would, i'd think, a man can exploit a woman in a relationship.

Dastardly Stem, your argument seems to come down to M (the rate at which monogamous husbands exploit their wives) is less than P (the rate at which polygamous husbands exploit their wives). But S (the rate at which single women get abused by their non-existent husbands) is even smaller than M; in fact it's zero. So does that mean we should prohibit monogamous marriage too, since S is less than M? If not, then why not?

Lol. Sure. Don't get married at all. You seem intent to try too hard to pin me into a position I don't hold. I think I've been rather clear. I wish you well, but I don't really want to play along. Happy to answer questions or talk about it. not really interested in playing the "that's not what I'm saying.." game over and over.

[IHAQ]

So it answers your initial question about what exactly is wrong with Polygamy - there is no evidence that it is beneficial to all involved.

My lack of awareness of a successful polygamous marriage does not establish even that a successful polygamous marriage doesn't exist, let alone cannot exist.

The problem isn't your lack of awareness of a successful polygamous marriage. The problem is nobody can find an example of a successful polygamous marriage (one where all parties are happy and content with the arrangement, and it is healthy for all involved). There's lots of examples of polygamous marriages though. Is the penny close to dropping, or are you clinging to the idea that, in theory, there's nothing stopping a utopian polygamous marriage existing, even though one example is yet to be found?

By your measure the American founding fathers should have gone with anarchy, not a republic, because of a lack of evidence that any form of government was beneficial to all involved. Sometimes you've got to try something new, even if it's a form of something that hasn't worked in the past, if there's no inherent reason why it can't work (in an altered form) in the future.

Yeah, so even if the arrange is bad for one or more of the participants, as long as some are happy that's okay? You seem desperate to make the case for having an extra wife. Is your wife aware you think there's something better than monogamy?

Assuming she is an unmarried single LDS, the Church has promised women in that position and those for whom childbirth isn't feasible, that they will be mothers in heaven providing they keep their covenants.

I'm not convinced there's any way to keep that promise without involving polygamy.

Artificial insemination. Adoption. Fostering.

[doubtingthomas]

Polyamory is a currently feasible lifestyle

It's mostly a woman with a lot of (autistic) boyfriends, or multiple (married) women dating each other.

I suspect it's very uncommon that multiple women agree to share the same boyfriend.

[doubtingthomas]

The Census wasn’t a scientific survey. It was a count.

Did the 1850s Census cover rural areas? and is there any evidence that single men in their 20s outnumbered young women? I suspect the age gap was larger in the 1850s.