My two daughters, and several nieces, are having trouble finding good young men.

And as we read here, many men are abusive.

Anyway, lets assume that only one out of five men are worth marrying. Wouldn't it be better for five women to marry that good guy, instead of them having to deal with the other 4 lazy jerks?

Would also be a way to improve our genetics, instead of all the losers getting to breed. Works for my cows, anyway.

...sounds reasonable, in theory, but you better have damn DEEP pockets to support such an arrangement. Just think of the TV show "Sister Wives"..........they seem to be hurting ($$$$$$$$$). I don't know if they are even solvent.

Welfare and tax fraud seem to be the biggest complaints levied by the authorities...child abuse cases not withstanding.

My fiancee thinks a second wife would be nice. She can keep her career and the second wife can stay home cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids. Of course it seems nice on the surface.

Of course she'd want someone to cook, clean and babysit. That is called a maid or nanny. Wife is something different.

Would she be okay sharing your sex life?

I feel like monogamy is a social invention (but one that I prefer). So honestly, I don't see why consenting adults should not be legally able to practice it if they wish. On further thought, however, where might it lead?

- One man marries multiple women
- One woman marries multiple men
- Multiple men marrying multiple women - kind of one big group hug.

I guess it depends on how you define marriage.

I really don't care what arrangements people make as long as they are all okay with their arrangements. It's really no one else's business as long as no one is being forced or abused.

I would tend to agree.

My major problem with Mormon polygamy (and especially JS) is the pressure that was placed on the girls/women to enter into it. The using of "God" and "salvation" to justify their behavior was abhorrant.

If consenting adults in an open society (people completely free to come/go) decide to marry any way they want, then go for it. I personally think that a polygamous relationship by definition is unfair and hence could not practice it with good conscience. But maybe it works for other folks? I do know from watching "Sister Wives" that (at least many times) it would seem that the wives would be happier in a monogamous relationship. Jealousy and emotion are very elevated in the Brown household.

I makes it impossible for a man to be as good as you seem to assume they would be in that situation. It also forces many women to be equally abusive.

You say polygamy is abusive. Yet I read countless stories of abuse in monogamy.

Don't understand why it wouldn't be better to avoid the bad guys.

so instead of simply teaching your girls to avoid the assholes you think it would be better for them to have a fraction of a good man's resources and attention?

OP, in your world are all women entitled to a 'good man'? if so, why?

Is this a trick question? Yes, I want the best for my daughters.

And I have taught my daughters to avoid the assholes, but as I've explained, there aren't enough good guys to go around.

So the way our system is set up, somebody's daughters are going to get assholes, and that asshole will breed more assholes.

My father was a first class asshole. None of his children thought highly enough of his behavior to emulate him. It's not about breeding. It's about choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2014 03:27PM by Devoted Exmo.

it's not a trick question

your daughters are having frustration in the dating market and you think that the explanation is that most men are garbage (obviously i strongly disagree with you)

the simplest explanation is that your girls simply don't have much to offer - the guys you would like to see them with are just 'out of their league'

maybe your girls aren't interesting or maybe they are but they are horrible to date (needy or bitchy or something like that)

but really, to think that 80% of men are losers just because your daughters want to get married and can't is rediculous

And part of my definition of a good man is hard working, which often means more resources, as Alpiner explained below. So a fraction of a larger pie is often better than all of a smaller pie. And since you can share facilities and vehicles and equipment, cost of living is lower.

And getting all the attention from a jerk isn't all that great.

"more resources"

you sound like a girl with a princess complex:

"i have a vagina therefore i deserve a free ride"

i'm sure your girls have picked up on this from you - probably what's really going on is that men with "resources" are repulsed by your girls' attitude

let me say it this way and be done with you and your man-shaming:

you want your girls to have a top 20% man

but are your girls top 20%-ers themselves?

Occam's razor says: doubtful

I don't think 'entitlement' entered into the OP's thinking, at least not from my reading.


Who doesn't want all of the good things within one's perception?

Of the world's 7 billion-plus humans, how many want a 'good marriage'? Would we even be able to agree on a definition what a 'good marriage' is?

Imagine you're car shopping. For the majority of us non-1%ers, we have to compromise. I'm sure most of us sigh when we have to turn away from the most luxurious model on the showroom floor and accept that it's simply not in the budget. Most of us recognize that we're not 'entitled' to our ultimate dream car.

The permutations that humans have come up with through our history regarding the love/reproduction/companionship/lust aspects of our beings are vast and continually evolving. More and more of us are being given the freedom to question our status quos, even when we don't really have the power to put any our grandiose plans into action.

One issue that doesn't get a lot of attention: what's the best possible adult relationship that provides the best possible outcome for the children born into that relationship?

Another issue: when reproduction is no longer possible, does that change what the best possible adult relationship is?

I think it's fun to discuss these themes, but my personal philosophy is sort of on the negative side:

"The human condition is not amenable to major remedial efforts. You don’t have to like it, but you should learn to live with it. Cuddle more."
- - EOD

yes, i'm sure you're right that 80% of men are lazy jerks...

I just threw those terms together.

There are hard working jerks, and there are lazy nice guys. And you can be a hard working nice guy but not interested in committing to a family, which is what interests many girls.

So based on what I've read and seen, probably about one in five is a hard working nice guy that is interested in a family.

"a hard working nice guy that is interested in a family"

let me fix that for you:

"a hard working nice guy that is interested in a family with my girls"

have you never seen guys compete for a girl?

That certainly was not the case with Brigham Young.

There are many polyamorous groups (not couples... else it wouldn't be polyamory) that seem to be able to make it work.

Additionally, OP is right. Women are actually more likely to have kids than men, because the average number of kids per man is higher. Put another way, we already see behavior similar to what OP is thinking, as low-resource women will generally seek a high-resource mate that already has one or more women in preference to a single low-resource monogamous mate. David Buss has done a lot of research on this, some of which I've linked below.

http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165805.pdf
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/29156/0000200.pdf?sequence=1


So, is polygamy *preferable*? That's a tough question. However, I would like to see it as socially acceptable for cases where the children are adequately provided for. I do not hold to the notion that polygamy is universally abusive, nor, in my opinion, should it matter -- we do not prevent unions where abuse is likely to occur, or on the basis of social good (an argument presented against gay marriage, which was rightly shot down, as freedom of association trumps it).

In any case, as Buss indicates, only a few men ever garner sufficient resources to attract multiple mates. Eventually, a tipping point is reached, where time and resource constraints place a fairly hard limit on the amount of long-term mates any given man can have.

I'll be darned, a post based on reality.

Well it worked well for the Governator.

Until it all fell apart that is.

So ya got all them wimmins, property of just a few guys. The women all adore being doormats and all is jolly... so what would ya suggest be done with all them extra guys? I know what the puppy millers do.

Are the women the property of the man, or is the man's resources the property of the women? Cuts both ways.

I don't understand why you're so concerned with the welfare of the lazy non-committal jerks who would be without wives. Maybe if they really wanted one, they could be nicer, work harder, and stick to commitments. It is their choice.

I mean, are we to reward men with wives regardless of merit?

Have a system in which all the jerks get a wife and then the wives can bitch and moan about what a jerk their husband is. And the cops can be arresting the abuser, and the lawyers and judges and prisons can prosper.

Yep, great system we have going here.

And by the way, if you're worried about the men without wives, are you not also worried about the women without husbands. Seems to be more and more the case, as more men lose interest in having a family.

I'm not really against the concept of having more than 2 people in a marriage, as long as everybody in the marriage is fully aware of the situation and fine with it, and as long as there is no abuse going on and that sort of thing.

The way Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did it was not ideal. There was a lot of secrecy, they married women without the permission of their existing wives (and in some cases without the permission of the women's other husbands), and some of the women they married probably didn't want to marry them.

I say let them marry as many people as they want. Just make sure everyone is sterile first. The kids have no say in the matter, and they're the ones who pay the price for the adults actions.

Come on people. Living with one woman is hard enough. Why would you to live with more? Think about it seriously, people.

Or you could train your daughters to be lazy jerks.


I think I should have 5 husbands and they should all just be glad I'm not a lazy jerk. After all, sharing access to a vjayjay is better than being alone. (Sounds pretty lame, doesn't it?)

Maybe we need to concentrate on population control and quality of life instead of making sure everyone is breeding. Gawd knows an embryo deserves better treatment than a lazy jerk who is already here and can't figure out a way to support our perfect daughters.

OK, I'm mostly kidding. The 5 husband part sounds pretty good. Are they housetrained?

Informed, consenting adults should have this option but how could we enforce this? If a young girl is isolated or anyone is religiously brainwashed, I would argue polygamy is abusive.


Lots to consider for this topic.

No it would be better if slimy guys bettered themselves instead of being lazy slimeballs.

Polygamy by definition is abusive.
Having said that however, if people want to live in that situation, go for it.
Just don't bring children into it because then the taxpayers have to support the children and the children get abused (often) and confused (every time).

I think that polygamy would work best if it is practiced my women after menopause is over and with men in the same age group - NO CHILDREN INVOLVED.

But who goes into polygamy if they don't plan to breed until their uteri falls out on the street like the breeding Duggars? THey aren't even polygamists. Imagine the show if they were....GAWD! "Fifty Seven kids and counting," if JimBob had 3 wives.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2014 03:49PM by verilyverily.

"Polygamy by definition is abusive"

How is that? Two women with a nice guy is more abusive than one woman with an asshole?

Let me propose this scenario. A woman has a chance to be the single wife of a lazy jerk that makes $15,000 a year, or become the second wife of a hard working nice guy that makes $200,000 a year.

Which would most women prefer, and why?

Neither. Too much self respect. Those aren't a persons only options in life.

Smart educated women don't have to marry for money. They can earn it themselves.

Free Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anyway, lets assume that only one out of five men
> are worth marrying. Wouldn't it be better for
> five women to marry that good guy, instead of them
> having to deal with the other 4 lazy jerks?


Not if you value legal equality.

Let's say M = man and W = woman. And for the sake of argument, let's assume these are all informed, consenting adults.

In Monogamy, you have either: M+W, M+M, W+W... Doesn't matter. You have 50% + 50%. Resources are (or can be) shared equally. (I know it isn't totally cut and dried, divorce settlements, pre-nups, etc. are not guaranteed to split everything equally.) However, each spouse has legal decision making power.

In polygamy, or specifically in the case we're talking about, polygyny, you have M + W1, W2, W3... No longer a case of 50/50. You have 50% / ~17%, ~17%, ~17%. Each wife has LESS power than the husband does. He can make legal decisions for any of his wives, for instance. But their power to make legal decisions for him is split between them. In other words, it would take all the wives put together to have the same legal power that one monogamous wife has.

Ex: husband is in the hospital in a coma. A monogamous wife may make decisions about his care. But polygamous wives either have to all agree on a decision, or maybe somone gets voted down, or their decision making power is diluted by order of marriage with the first wife having more power than the subsequent wives. In any case, they are not legally equal to their husband.

So- I would never support legalized polygamy because I do not support institutionalized inequality.