• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we take steps to remove the social stigma on polyandry and polygamy?

Should we take steps to remove the social stigma on polyandry and polygamy?

  • Yes, the majority of men would benefit

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, the majority of women would benefit

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, the majority of men and women would benefit

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Yes, I don't care who would or would not benefit, as long as it doesn't affect me

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, I want to be able to engage in polyandry or polygamy without being stigmatized

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Yes, this wouldn't have any appreciable effect on society

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • No, this would not be good for society

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • No, marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • No, marriage is supposed to be between two people only

    Votes: 2 10.0%

  • Total voters
    20

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Contrary to what most people may believe, evolutionarily speaking, the institution of marriage between one man and one woman actually benefits men more than women. Most men believe that polygamy would be better for men because men are "horn dogs" and all they want is tons of women for themselves. However, if polygamy were the socially appropriate mating style, men would loose on the deal. Here is why:

First, here are a few facts:

1.) Women are much more likely to be a biological parent than are men. How can this be you may ask? Its simple, look at the next facts:
2.) Men and woman both often have multiple sexual partners (this fact may be obvious to most people).
3.) Woman can be absolutely sure that the child(ren) they care for are their own. Men do not have that certainty. If a woman has unprotected sex with more than one man (especially during ovulation) she will have a child that is most certainly her own. However, a man can have unprotected sex with as many women as he wants and is not guaranteed to father a child (biologically at least). Therefore, monogamy protects men from providing resources to children that are not his own. A woman does not have to worry about this since if the child comes out of her womb it is most certainly her own.
4.) In world where highly disproportionate amounts of resources are dispersed between individuals, i.e. only a few people hold all the wealth, if polygamy and or polyandry were socially appropriate and it where the norm, it is likely that harems would emerge. This would be bad for most men on all fronts (evolutionarily at least). In the case of polygamy, there would only be a few happy men and there would be many unhappy men because most of the men with the most money would have several wives, leaving no wives for the poorer men. This would be a recipe for disaster, since studies have shown that men are married or partnered have fewer problems and are generally happier. Indeed, a chemical is released in the male that has calming effects; it also decreases testosterone in the male. The case of polyandry is obvious since only one man of the many, could father (biologically) a child. Essentially, not only would polygamy and or polyandry be bad for most males, it would likely be bad for society since there would likely be more aggressive crimes etc.
It should be noted that most women would reply to this argument by saying that women would never go for it... however, in a world where one individual's income could provide for 100's of wives, it is not inconceivable. Indeed, if the social stigma against polygamy and or polyandry were removed, there would not be much from preventing this from happening on a large scale. Sure, the wives would be jealous of the other wives, but evolutionarily speaking, the increase in resources would overrule that jealousy.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Polyandry is really more practical than polygamy. I didn't realize it was socially stigmatized though. Obviously, it's not a legal form of "marriage" but that's a different debate altogether.

I assume that when you use the term polyandry you would define it as fidelitous polyamory. Not sure if fidelitous is a word but you know what I'm asking. Are we referring to a woman with more than one "husband" who is faithful to the 2 or more husbands that have made this arrangement?

Considering the practicality of these alternative arrangements, I don't think they are socially stigmatized. Legally, yes, but socially?
 

paddymcdougall

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
3,032
Reaction score
1,687
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm firmly against the "traditional" practice of polygamy -where one man has multiple wives. In general, this has led to women not having many rights; to old men marrying young girls; to young men being driven out of the group because they compete with the old men for wives; etc. And, in cases where the men can't afford the wives, the extra spouses end up on welfare and we pay for them and their kids. Read up on Mormon fundamentalists to see more of this. Also, kids raised in this culture may say they're ok with it - young girls saying they want to marry the old men - but really, what have they seen differently?

Now the more modern definition of Polyamory - where adults of various genders come together in a group and live together - I'm ok with that in general as long as they ARE adults (my personal opinion is that they should be at least 25 years old) and they are free to leave the group if it doesn't work for them. I think it is a very difficult arrangement and most of us (including myself) couldn't handle it.

I don't see a reason to legalize this arrangement - there are so few of them; and if they are adult enough to live together like that, they should be adult enough to get contracts, power of attorney, wills, etc to cover them. To change our laws which are predicted on two people to include an unknown number just seems like not worth the effort given the small number of people affected.

Changing the rules for marriage equality is pretty simple - from "husband and wife" to "spouse and spouse" ... nothing else has to change in terms of inheritance, survivor benefits, child custody, etc.

I have no objections to people trying to legalize polyamory; but it won't be as major an issue for me as marriage equality is (note: I am straight, to me marriage equality is today's key civil rights issue).

(yes, I'm new, hope it's ok to post here)
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
All your premises aside, a person's sexual relationships are their own business. Obviously, the young-girl-abusing nature of some forms of polygamy certainly warrants concern, but that is a consent and coercion issue. Adults can basically do whatever they want with each other. I see no reason for any social stigma.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
50,348
Reaction score
17,861
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We have a nearly equal number of males and females. What possible reason would we want all the hot women "bought" up by rich SOB's?
 

Dooble

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
All your premises aside, a person's sexual relationships are their own business. Obviously, the young-girl-abusing nature of some forms of polygamy certainly warrants concern, but that is a consent and coercion issue. Adults can basically do whatever they want with each other. I see no reason for any social stigma.
"Hi, I'm Randy. I have sixteen wives and one husband. My girlfriend thinks I'm not very enlightened having just one male spouse, but what does she know? She's just the mistress".

Ah, the carnal charms of unfettered Socialism....
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Contrary to what most people may believe, evolutionarily speaking, the institution of marriage between one man and one woman actually benefits men more than women. Most men believe that polygamy would be better for men because men are "horn dogs" and all they want is tons of women for themselves. However, if polygamy were the socially appropriate mating style, men would loose on the deal. Here is why:

First, here are a few facts:

1.) Women are much more likely to be a biological parent than are men. How can this be you may ask? Its simple, look at the next facts:
2.) Men and woman both often have multiple sexual partners (this fact may be obvious to most people).
3.) Woman can be absolutely sure that the child(ren) they care for are their own. Men do not have that certainty. If a woman has unprotected sex with more than one man (especially during ovulation) she will have a child that is most certainly her own. However, a man can have unprotected sex with as many women as he wants and is not guaranteed to father a child (biologically at least). Therefore, monogamy protects men from providing resources to children that are not his own. A woman does not have to worry about this since if the child comes out of her womb it is most certainly her own.
4.) In world where highly disproportionate amounts of resources are dispersed between individuals, i.e. only a few people hold all the wealth, if polygamy and or polyandry were socially appropriate and it where the norm, it is likely that harems would emerge. This would be bad for most men on all fronts (evolutionarily at least). In the case of polygamy, there would only be a few happy men and there would be many unhappy men because most of the men with the most money would have several wives, leaving no wives for the poorer men. This would be a recipe for disaster, since studies have shown that men are married or partnered have fewer problems and are generally happier. Indeed, a chemical is released in the male that has calming effects; it also decreases testosterone in the male. The case of polyandry is obvious since only one man of the many, could father (biologically) a child. Essentially, not only would polygamy and or polyandry be bad for most males, it would likely be bad for society since there would likely be more aggressive crimes etc.
It should be noted that most women would reply to this argument by saying that women would never go for it... however, in a world where one individual's income could provide for 100's of wives, it is not inconceivable. Indeed, if the social stigma against polygamy and or polyandry were removed, there would not be much from preventing this from happening on a large scale. Sure, the wives would be jealous of the other wives, but evolutionarily speaking, the increase in resources would overrule that jealousy.

In the societies out there which practice polyandry or polygamy, there is a specific reason and benefit. These reasons and benefits are different and based on things like social-order, hierarchy, familial responsibilities, inheritance, etc. It is not a social-norm issue which relies on public acceptance. If it does, that's usually in cases where the royal family or leader of the tribe (etc) is permitted to have more than one wife (or vise versa) to aid in the duties therein (beyond parenting children) - yet the individuals who rank beneath him/her are not permitted to do so.

In the US we cater to the individual needs and desires - we don't rely on social norms and other considerations to form most of our beliefs and living concerns. Thus, when people are told "you cannot do ___" in the areas where society does insert itself - they become personally opinion. The self, in these situations, is ranked too high.

"I should be able to do whatever I want" is the thought process for such people.

In truth, there's simply no reason or benefit beyond immediate personal desires for such relationships. There are no royal customs, there are no land-rights, there is no fear that the family cannot continuously divide their land for each male born, etc. There are only a few people who just want to for no reason other than their own personal desires.

In the US - we uphold individuality but "because I want to" doesn't cut it.
 

Hard Truth

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
9,122
Reaction score
3,751
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Marriage primarily benefits women because the woman is guaranteed financial support for her child if she gets pregnant. The husband can be held legally responsible for the child even if it isn't actually his.

I don't think we need to promote or discourage any particular type of relationship, different people have different needs and desires.

I have no problem with legalized polygamous marriages as long as employers or the government don't give a greater subsidy to polygamous marriages than they do to monogamous ones. I would also raise the minimum age for marriage to 18 for all marriages to prevent exploitation of naive kids.
 

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Polyandry is really more practical than polygamy.

Do explain...

I didn't realize it was socially stigmatized though. Obviously, it's not a legal form of "marriage" but that's a different debate altogether.

Oh there is!!!

I assume that when you use the term polyandry you would define it as fidelitous polyamory. Not sure if fidelitous is a word but you know what I'm asking. Are we referring to a woman with more than one "husband" who is faithful to the 2 or more husbands that have made this arrangement?

polyandry defined: A pattern of mating in which a female animal has more than one male mate

source: https://www.google.com/#q=polyandry...99,d.eWU&fp=bcc04ea0b242737c&biw=1366&bih=552

Considering the practicality of these alternative arrangements, I don't think they are socially stigmatized. Legally, yes, but socially?

Interesting opinion, but studies have shown that these alternative arrangements are a counterculture and stigmatized. In what way do you feel they are not stigmatized?
 

Neomalthusian

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,234
Reaction score
2,993
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I doubt this would have a significant impact on society. Frankly I question the mental/emotional health of sets of folks who would willingly engage in polygamous arrangements. Who's being abused and controlled in this arrangement? Who's the abuser/controller? Are these really normal, healthy, functional people, on average?

I think these people exist on the margins, and not just because it's stigmatized, but because it doesn't really work any better than infidelity or open relationships.
 

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oops I made a typo in the OP.... it reads:

Contrary to what most people may believe, evolutionarily speaking, the institution of marriage between one man and one woman actually benefits men more than women.

Its should read:

Contrary to what most people may believe, evolutionarily speaking, the institution of marriage between one man and one woman actually benefits women more than men.

Anyone know how to fix this in the OP... is it possible to fix it?
 

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
We have a nearly equal number of males and females. What possible reason would we want all the hot women "bought" up by rich SOB's?

This is exactly my point... supporting this would be bad for most men and thus, it would be bad for society as a whole

I doubt this would have a significant impact on society. Frankly I question the mental/emotional health of sets of folks who would willingly engage in polygamous arrangements. Who's being abused and controlled in this arrangement? Who's the abuser/controller? Are these really normal, healthy, functional people, on average?

I think these people exist on the margins, and not just because it's stigmatized, but because it doesn't really work any better than infidelity or open relationships.

I agree with this too. Lets see if we have anyone who disagrees.....
 

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
All your premises aside, a person's sexual relationships are their own business. Obviously, the young-girl-abusing nature of some forms of polygamy certainly warrants concern, but that is a consent and coercion issue. Adults can basically do whatever they want with each other. I see no reason for any social stigma.


Do you see any way that polygamy or polyandry could be harmful to society?
 

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
"Hi, I'm Randy. I have sixteen wives and one husband. My girlfriend thinks I'm not very enlightened having just one male spouse, but what does she know? She's just the mistress".

So what is your point/argument? Spell it out for us please ;)

Ah, the carnal charms of unfettered Socialism....

I am curious how you think socialism is related to this topic .... ? ?
 

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
In the societies out there which practice polyandry or polygamy, there is a specific reason and benefit. These reasons and benefits are different and based on things like social-order, hierarchy, familial responsibilities, inheritance, etc. It is not a social-norm issue which relies on public acceptance. If it does, that's usually in cases where the royal family or leader of the tribe (etc) is permitted to have more than one wife (or vise versa) to aid in the duties therein (beyond parenting children) - yet the individuals who rank beneath him/her are not permitted to do so.

In the US we cater to the individual needs and desires - we don't rely on social norms and other considerations to form most of our beliefs and living concerns. Thus, when people are told "you cannot do ___" in the areas where society does insert itself - they become personally opinion. The self, in these situations, is ranked too high.

"I should be able to do whatever I want" is the thought process for such people.

In truth, there's simply no reason or benefit beyond immediate personal desires for such relationships. There are no royal customs, there are no land-rights, there is no fear that the family cannot continuously divide their land for each male born, etc. There are only a few people who just want to for no reason other than their own personal desires.

In the US - we uphold individuality but "because I want to" doesn't cut it.

So you are saying you feel there should be some societal gain in supporting things like polygamy or polyandry ... ? ?
 

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Filled entirely with consenting adults, not really.

OK... for arguments sake though... lets say these types of relationships were encouraged so much that they were no longer counterculture and became mainstream. I am not sure this would happen unless most men slowly became babbling idiots, but for arguments sake, lets say it did. ;) Lets say polygamy became the norm. How many pissed off men do you think there would be in the world? Sure the few men with all the money most certainly would consent and the women would hesitantly consent.... however.... I am not sure how impressed all the single men would be about it!! LOL! In all reality, it would probably be a recipe for disaster for society (read about the effects of having sex compared to not having sex). So really... no harm done right?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
So you are saying you feel there should be some societal gain in supporting things like polygamy or polyandry ... ? ?

Somewhat - I'm saying that in the nations/areas where it is an acceptable practice: there's a specific reason for it. It's backed up, supported, or upheld for concerns and interests beyond "I want to marry two people."

In the US that's all there is to it. "I want to marry two people"
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If one man has 5 wives, then 4 men have none. Can you just imagine how the expression of all that pent up lust will manifest itself?


Oh, you say we are already seeing that on the world stage? Yeah, I guess you have a point.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If one man has 5 wives, then 4 men have none. Can you just imagine how the expression of all that pent up lust will manifest itself?


Oh, you say we are already seeing that on the world stage? Yeah, I guess you have a point.

Well - in certain areas where it's practiced that's not the concern: Indonesia (in the past) where polyandry was practiced (one woman, multiple males) Females often left their current village to marry outside the village (since villagers were related). Any sons born to a mother were expected to stay at their home, on their farm, and work the land - not traveling to find 2 wives, or 3 wives to bring back so each could marry and each father a large number of children.

And thus - they would all find 1 wife, she'd have several children. If it's a girl - she's sent off to marry. If they have boy(s) they stay and all will inherit the land. Thus - the land is never divided, it can still sustain a small family, everyone is taken care of.

There was no welfare, no government support, and no large quantities of food to buy at a grocery store. Subsistence farming and nothing more.

And repeat.

Two main goals: 1) to never have to divide the family land - one large area supports the same number of people. 2) Overpopulation is much less of a concern.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't think you are ever going to get to a point in a society where women have access to education and human rights that you will see any sort of movement towards accepting being in a polygamist relationship to a very large degree. I also don't see there really being any sort of real possibility of men accepting multiple wives and hell many men don't even want to marry one, so marrying two, three, four or more wives is just off the table. I really don't think that removing the social stigma would actually be enough to move people into those types relationships in this country. In fact, the way things are going marriage is a dying institution. With marriage numbers going down every year is it really legitimate to be worried about these type of marriages? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:

paddymcdougall

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
3,032
Reaction score
1,687
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you see any way that polygamy or polyandry could be harmful to society?

Yes; look at the mormon fundamentalist groups, especially in areas where they are the majority. Polygamy in those areas lead to uneducated girls; woman and children on welfare; young men getting driven out; and people who DON'T follow it and other religious precepts get shunned. (Read Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven").

Now you may argue that's because it's illegal and therefore they are hiding their activities; that if it was legal, the people would be more public and exposed to other ideas. Maybe. But it's a pretty unhealthy institution, and having uneducated kids in our society is bad for society.

As I said earlier - I have no problem with ADULTS who practice polyamory in an uncoerced fashion; I would put the minimum age at 25, personally. But they should be mature enough to handle contracts, wills, powers of attorney on their own; I don't see that there is enough people doing it to "legalize" it. After all, right now you can live in a multiple partner relationship; nothing illegal about it unless you officially marry more than one person or try to claim benefits for more than one person.
 

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
All your premises aside, a person's sexual relationships are their own business. Obviously, the young-girl-abusing nature of some forms of polygamy certainly warrants concern, but that is a consent and coercion issue. Adults can basically do whatever they want with each other. I see no reason for any social stigma.

Marriage isn't solely about sex. Polygamy is nothing more than the subjugation of women by treating them as objects and property. It's no coincidence that the only societies that allow polygamy also happen to be some of the worst offenders of human rights in the world.
 

Dooble

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So what is your point/argument? Spell it out for us please ;)
I'd be more than happy to spell it out for ya. What I'm doing is taking a snap shot of what very well could be the not too distant future, and sharing it with this forum. Does that answer your question, or would you like to go a little more in depth? ;)

I am curious how you think socialism is related to this topic .... ? ?
The relation is Paschendale, the person I responded to; he's a Socialist.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Do explain...polyandry defined: A pattern of mating in which a female animal has more than one male mate

•••It is much easier for a woman to satisfy and be satisfied by multiple males than the other way around. Do I really have to graphically explain this? Or do you understand the difference between male and female genitalia.

Interesting opinion, but studies have shown that these alternative arrangements are a counterculture and stigmatized.
•••Yes. It's an opinion. Who are these people that stigmatize this? How do they even know about it? What does it matter? Who cares?

In what way do you feel they are not stigmatized?
•••How can you ask me to prove a negative? In what way are you not a mass murderer?


Do explain...



Oh there is!!!



polyandry defined: A pattern of mating in which a female animal has more than one male mate

source: https://www.google.com/#q=polyandry...99,d.eWU&fp=bcc04ea0b242737c&biw=1366&bih=552



Interesting opinion, but studies have shown that these alternative arrangements are a counterculture and stigmatized. In what way do you feel they are not stigmatized?
 
Top Bottom