Regarding polygamy

Atheist no-shit Pat Condell (who in my opinion kicks ass), talked in one of his recent videos about polygamy. I am personally against polygamy, as it’s a strip of self-dignity and a de-powering of women. It’s as bad as genital mutilation as far as I am concerned, it’s just that this is emotional mutilation. I would never, never, be able to be the No2, or the No3, or even the No1. I have to be the only one. Even if our time together is finite.

Having said that, I recognize that humans don’t necessarily mate for life. But this doesn’t give men the right to be married to 2+ women at the same time. No one can win out of such a “relationship”.

Polygamy can only be useful in the case where there would be many more women than men on the planet (like, 3x or more), in which case Darwin would have worked its magic and polygamy would make more (genetic) sense. Either that, or simply, the marriage institution would be collapsed in that case.

Update: Read the comments for more explanation on my position. But to make it clear: As long the women are educated (see: not intellectually retarded), know where they are putting themselves into when they agree to a polygamous marriage, and they are NOT forced to enter such a marriage, I am fine with it. Otherwise, I see the whole thing as a male power play that USES and makes women UNHAPPY. But as long nothing like that goes on, I am ok with it.

18 Comments »

Jim wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 1:44 PM PST:

Eugenia
In the Seattle area there are a number of poly households basically polygimous households mostly run by women from the ones I have met.
My postition is that I know they exist and that is fine with me that they exist, but I have no interest in joining.
The bible clearly favors polymogomy which is heart burn to my bible thumping friends, but I don’t see it as a gender issue at all. The Mormon type of polyogomy though seems to be child molestation, but then arranged marriages and arranged marraiges for children is nothing new in any society.


John M. wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 1:52 PM PST:

Mormons have not practiced polygamy since 1890. Those who continue to practice it are not Mormons.


Nutela wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 2:25 PM PST:

What about 1 women sharing more men?

I think if everybody agrees freely everything is possible.

And being the only one is an ego thing 🙂


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 2:38 PM PST:

>What about 1 women sharing more men?

No.

>I think if everybody agrees freely everything is possible.

Possible yes. Acceptable NO.

>And being the only one is an ego thing.

No it’s not. If someone wants an open relationship, in terms of having sex with others, other than your husband/wife once a while, I think that’s between the couple to decide. Some couples do that, in order to not get bored sexually over the years. I don’t condone this behavior, but I don’t fundamentally disagree with this either, because the “crazy sexual passion” period on a couple only lasts 1-3 years (scientific fact), and it’s going downhill from then on as the chemicals in the brain don’t react anymore the same way for the same person (“true love” stays after that period, but the intense sex drive towards the same person usually dies so couples don’t end up having more than 3-5 children in their lifetime — Darwin you see, and balance of nature, think of this in evolution sense). So some couples, occasionally, might go pick up someone else for an one night stand, after having agreed to do that.

But bringing other people to *live* with you, sharing EMOTIONALLY your spouse EVERYDAY, and knowing that you don’t get as much love and devotion as you would like because his time is shared, or that your children don’t get all the attention they deserve because of the other wives’ children, this is completely and utterly unacceptable. I would never agree to this. I mean, why the hell would someone marry if it was not for being with the person that you love and loves you back equally and not divided by 3 or 4 or 5?

The above two paragraphs might sound conflicting, but they’re not. For most women, emotional attachment is more important than sex. There are many cases that a woman will just shut up even if she knows that her husband is cheating on her, but from the moment she learns that the husband is actually IN LOVE with that other woman, I can tell you right now, the tolerance stops right there. Speaking for myself, sex is not as important as love and emotional attachment. If my husband had a terrible accident and couldn’t perform anymore, I would still stay with him and take care of him until the day I die. And I expect no less from him too.


Nita wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 3:49 PM PST:

why the hell would someone marry if it was not for being with the person that you love and loves you back equally and not divided by 3 or 4 or 5?

Why would you have to marry someone to be in a serious relationship? Not everyone believes in that old-fashioned thing. Oh, and people who are polyamorous, like myself, can actually fall in love in the deepest meaning of those words to several people, yet the love towards any of them DOES NOT get divided by the number that person loves..So get your facts straight. And don’t get me wrong either, even though I can love several people (I mean as in having the ability) I still wouldn’t want a polygamous relationship. Though, I do know some people who do live in polygamous relationships. All participants of those relationships have agreed to it free-willingly, and all those I know of are mostly dominated by females, not males.


Thom Holwerda wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 4:04 PM PST:

Bah, let people love the people they want. I don’t give a rat’s ass. Nobody has a monopoly on the definition of love, and just because your definition of love, Eugenia, implies one person, that does not mean that goes for everyone.

I just don’t care. If a guy wants to have five wives, and there’s no force or whatever involved (the women choose to and are free to leave/divorce), and they are all happy… Who am I to judge?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 6:53 PM PST:

Nita, be careful what you write.

1. I never said that you have to get married. But IF you have to get marry, at least do it right, in a way that won’t bite you back emotionally.

2. and people who are polyamorous…

I do not believe that you can be seriously loving many people at the SAME time as loving someone else. Throughout my life, I might have been “in love” a dozen times. Maybe more. But my true love was only directed to 1-3 people (who didn’t always feel the same way btw). Now, you can have many relationships, sometimes at the same time, witho your lover knowing or not about it, but that’s just called “good times” (and according to some, “whoring”), not “love”. So don’t mix things. I can’t possibly believe you that you TRULY love THREE people when you are engaged or married or in a serious relationship with ONE of them. If that’s what you think, then I don’t believe that you have actually loved, in that “deepest meaning of the word” in your life.

I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, but I don’t believe you when you say that you “fall in love in the deepest meaning of those words to several people” at the same time (because it’s the “same time” that we are talking about here). Call me old fashioned, or a buffoon, but I can’t take that seriously.

>because your definition of love, Eugenia,

Weird. I thought I was part of the human species too. Or at least there is a “common” sense thing where 90% of the people agree with. There is such a fierce competition between the wives in such a marriage, that can not POSSIBLY result to a stable relationship with their partner. The wives will be constantly bickering at each other.

>and there’s no force or whatever involved

There is usually force. On like what, 80% of these marriages or something, we are talking about 15 year old forced girls. So I can’t just agree with this.

I know for a fact, that if I was part of such a harem, I would be long gone, as I would have suicided already. And maybe taken a few people with me down too. That’s not something I tolerate. I am not the slave type.


Soulben der wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 7:47 PM PST:

Quite a few cultures are polygamous. Just because Christianity and western culture is generally against it doesn’t mean it’s the only way to go.
Granted, if force is involved it’s wrong but so are non-poly relationships that are forced.It’s like saying that marriage is always wrong because, you know, in some cultures marriage is forced.
If all the participants agree and enter the relationship of free will it’s really none mine or your business.
Just because you personally couldn’t be in a polygamous relationship doesn’t make it universally wrong.
Btw, my captcha was “wife’s scarlett”. Heh.


Steve Bergman wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 8:27 PM PST:

It’s funny that conversations about polygamy always focus on men having many wives. When in fact, the real impact of a polygamous society is that most guys have nothing. (At least not officially.)

Hmmm. I wonder what it’s like to be a gay guy in a polygamous society?


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 8:29 PM PST:

>If all the participants agree and enter the relationship of free will

Right. Like any of these marriages is actually based on free will. Because you see, I’ve never heard of a case where a woman enters such a marriage on free will. It’s always the parents arranging that shit.

I don’t disagree with polygamy when there are practical reasons for it (e.g. when there are too many women compared to men), or for social reasons (in some countries, if a husband dies, his brother marries his wife in order to take care of her as most women can’t easily find a job in these societies), then sure, I can’t say anything against it.

But in the way it’s usually done, a man marrying to many women just because he can, so he can fuck more, usually young girls who have no say, it fucking disgusts me. It’s nothing but “I feed you, I cloth you, so I can fuck you whenever I want, and if you don’t like it, there are others that will sit on my dick and you’d be sided away, and usually beaten up too”. I mean, come on, let’s be serious here. If polygamy is “right”, why there are no cases of 1 woman with many men, but only the other way around? That’s because polygamy is something only the men can pull it off and live to tell about it, and that’s on societies or groups where there IS NO equality between the two sexes. The only cases where women had many men, were the queens, e.g. ancient Egyptian queens. This just shows that in order to pull polygamy off in ANY society, it is a game of inequality and power. And as there are not many matriarch societies left in the world, we see polygamy only on countries that men rule and women are POSSESSIONS. So, don’t play the liberal card on me, it doesn’t work.

Many western people do not condone polygamy not because of Christianity (I am an atheist anyway). But because women here are woken up and are independent. Not slaves with nowhere to go and forced to follow these terrible rules in order to survive and have food on their plate. I congratulate men who only marry a single woman and get devoted to her, even if their society allows for polygamy.


Icepyk wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 9:04 PM PST:

The reverse of polygamy is polyandry, that is, 1 women, several (more than 2) men.
The practice of polygamy was constant in the ancient world, the Romans where the first to refrain from the practice, and this was done to concentrate wealth, as in, wealth did not have to be dispersed among numerous offspring by various partners. This has been given as a reason for the (then) prominence of western society. We have an abhorrence to the practice, but it is based on sociological teaching, nothing more. I tend to agree with previous speakers – if it is a decision consented to by all parties, including present wives, who are the rest of us to judge the morality?

There were societies which practiced polyandry – I think in (pre-missionary) Hawaii , for one – but I could be wrong. Certainly, I know of no polyandry-based society is viable currently – and not surprising with the dominance of ‘christian’ mentality, and perceived social mores….


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 9:48 PM PST:

> if it is a decision consented to by all parties

But this is exactly my problem. I know of no modern, independent woman who would agree to this. None. Unless she is fucking retarded and has been brainwashed by her parents since being a little girl, I don’t see it happening. Do you think it’s a coincidence that polygamy is only practiced in male ruled societies where women are possessions? It has nothing to do with western law not allowing it and it has nothing to do with Christianity because other taboos ARE broken in the legal system despite the Pope’s disagreement. But it has to do with independent women who think for themselves and want the best out of their lives. And sharing your life and husband with other women, ain’t gonna give you that. It will give you depression instead and a feeling of being NOBODY. The only thing that would keep you alive is your love for your children.

And what a wonderful way is this to CONTROL women.

Fucking disgusting.


Soulbender wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 11:27 PM PST:

[q]I know of no modern, independent woman who would agree to this. None.[/q]

Neither do I, personally, but that doesnt mean they dont exist.

[q]Unless she is fucking retarded and has been brainwashed by her parents since being a little girl, I don’t see it happening.[/q]

Right. Because obviously if she doesnt agree with your narrowminded view she’s retarded or brainwashed. Hmm…sounds like a familiar argument.

[q]Do you think it’s a coincidence that polygamy is only practiced in male ruled societies where women are possessions?[/q]

Perhaps you should study this subject a bit more. It’s pretty obvious you don’t know what you’re on about. Deoes Polyandry then only occur on female ruled societes where men are possessions then?

[q]Fucking disgusting.[/q]
Almost as disgusting as someone trying to impose their moral standards and values on everyone else. Guess who else does that? Pat Robertson.


Soulbender wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 11:31 PM PST:

Whaddayaknow, osnews style quoting doesnt work here.


Soulbender wrote on March 25th, 2008 at 11:38 PM PST:

[q]It’s always the parents arranging that shit.[/q]

You know, I’ve heard many cultures have arranged monogamous marriages. My conclusion then is that marriage is wrong and inherently contributes to the oppression of women.

[q]That’s because polygamy is something only the men can pull it off and live to tell about it[/q]

Please explain the existence of Polyandry then.

[q]The only cases where women had many men, were the queens, e.g. ancient Egyptian queens.[/q]

There are many examples of Polyandry, both current and historical. Please do some minimal amount of research.

[q]But because women here are woken up and are independent.[/q]

You know, I just love how you degrade all these woman who doesn’t think like you do. Truly awesome.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on March 26th, 2008 at 12:07 AM PST:

>Please explain the existence of Polyandry then.

There is no polyandry in modern society. I’ve heard of none anywhere, and I have only heard of it in the distant past of human societies where yes, women were in charge. Again, it was a game of power, a society of inequality.

>Whaddayaknow, osnews style quoting doesnt work here.

Why the hell did you fucking use it again then on your next comment??? This is WordPress, and it is my blog, not fucking osnews. Read the freaking guideline on the bottom of the page. Just because you came here from the osnews staff blog doesn’t mean that our blogs have anything to do with osnews.

>Almost as disgusting as someone trying to impose their moral standards and values on everyone else.

I don’t see how I “impose” anything. This is MY blog. This is where I rant. This is where I write MY opinions. You are FREE to not agree with my opinions. I respect your right to have a different opinion, and I will do everything in my power to debunk it in a fair discussion forum, and I suggest you do the same too. But don’t say that I impose anything because this would imply that I play dirty in this discussion, while I don’t. I have my opinions and you have yours, and that’s about it.

> Neither do I, personally, but that doesnt mean they dont exist

If after all these years living as part of a society have not met a SINGLE woman who would agree to this, it’s fair chance to say that the VAST majority of INDEPENDENT-thinking/raised women, do not want that shit near them. And that’s a good democratic base for a law that bans polygamy/polyandry. By banning it, you assure that the FEW that would end up in that situation, wouldn’t be forced into it. You protect the many by not allowing the very few to do something. Sorry, but that’s true for any law and that’s how democracy works.

When I write that I am against polygamy, I am against the abuse of it. And given the fact that 80% to 90% of them were forced marriages in fucked up societies where women are considered possessions or simply of lower importance, you BET I am fucking against it.


Thom Holwerda wrote on March 26th, 2008 at 12:40 AM PST:

Right. Like any of these marriages is actually based on free will. Because you see, I’ve never heard of a case where a woman enters such a marriage on free will. It’s always the parents arranging that shit.

There was a documentary a few weeks ago on Dutch TV here, which detailed quite a few couples who freely, and willingly, engaged in a one-men-two-women relationship. Parents had nothing to do with this; we are talking 40+ year old people here. Most of the women even said that it was THEIR idea, not that of the men.

Weird. I thought I was part of the human species too. Or at least there is a “common” sense thing where 90% of the people agree with.

If you want to go down that route, I suppose you oppose gay marriage too, because 90% of the world do not believe that two men or women can love each other in the same way that a man and a woman can.

Nonsense argument, Eugenia.

There is usually force. On like what, 80% of these marriages or something, we are talking about 15 year old forced girls. So I can’t just agree with this.

So, even thought that figure is completely taken out of thin air, that still leaves 20% where people engaged in such relationships out of free will. Like the examples I gave above.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that polygamy is only practiced in male ruled societies where women are possessions?

Err, see above examples.

I do not believe that you can be seriously loving many people at the SAME time as loving someone else.

That argument is shockingly similar to the arguments used by many people who are anti-homosexuals. Just so you know.

I don’t believe you when you say that you “fall in love in the deepest meaning of those words to several people” at the same time (because it’s the “same time” that we are talking about here).

Ah, you can’t believe it. And we all know you are the perfect, average example of the human female.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on March 26th, 2008 at 1:19 AM PST:

>That argument is shockingly similar to the arguments used by many people who are anti-homosexuals. Just so you know.

Thom, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying something like this to me, because you AGAIN, like you did 2 weeks ago, you misused my sayings and twist them like fucking macaroni. Because when I said that true love is when you are completely devoted to a SINGLE individual and not five at the same time, has absolutely no anti-gay vibe to it. I am shocked you even said something like this. If anything, I know many gay people, good friends, who have long relationships, and they would agree with the devotion thing. This doesn’t mean that people should not have many lovers in their life. But you can’t expect me to believe that you love purely and equally all of them at the same time and you want to marry them all and live with all of them at the same time. It’s just not possible. It’s not how human brains work, not for women anyway. I am sure men would LOVE to fuck many women, but women WANT exclusivity. Yes, as a sex act, it is something that it can be done and many people do. But as an EMOTIONAL thing, a real love thing, this just doesn’t work. *Real* love is only between two people (gay or not), at a time (it can happen more than once in a lifetime, of course, but it’s between TWO people each time). Sex instead, can be between 500 at the same time. But it’s not the same thing and it’s not what matters. Sex doesn’t matter for most women. Emotional attachment does. This is why exclusivity is such a big deal. There’s a greek saying too: “Third among the first two doesn’t fit in”.

If you continue twisting my words like this in the future, I will have to ask you to never reply to my blog again. If that’s the game you want to play, to accuse me of things that I never said or implied and clearly have nothing to do with anything, I don’t want you here.

Back on topic, I guess there is nothing more to add then. Many believe that people should be allowed to do this, and I say that there is so much danger for misuse of that freedom (a freedom that I personally feel that will bring unhappiness to all the wives), that shouldn’t constitute as a freedom. We can agree to disagree.

I will leave you with this polygamy documentary then. Click to view at the 41st minute and later. Listen to what women have to say about this. Women who are still part of such polygamy groups, or have been. Some quotes:

“You have to compete every day. You have no good relationship with your husband. You couldn’t create this bond with him because he was not just yours. Constant feeling of jealousy. It’s not a peaceful existence. Behind the scenes, it’s not happy there. This is NOT a place you want to live.”

There, right from the horses mouth. So spare me the liberalism and your “forward thinking”.


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.