The polygamists in Joe's time right up to the present day like to pretend that polygamy is all about caring for women and children or about libertarian freedom or religion.

Actually, most of us probably know it's about sex.

Funny thing is that anyone can have more and better sex without the pretense of marrying everyone who stimulates sexual interest.

They don't need to pretend they've interviewed and carefully screened prospective participants to be sure they have every family need covered.

Yes, some plygs actually say that they have one spouse who is an expert at childrearing, one for bringing in income, one for household upkeep, one who cooks and cans. Nope. as in Joe's day, spouses are still chosen as sex objects or for the power and money they bring to the equation.

What kind of pathetic person would be flattered to enter a family where they would get occasional sex with a shared spouse in exchange for a needed skill like keeping the books or knitting winterwear?

Sillier is the idea that polygamists are only doing it because there's no other charitable way of taking care of women and children in need. No, the care that needy women and children receive is catch as catch can and never the purpose for the polygamous arrangement.

Kids shouldn't have to give parent status to every adult their actual parents want to boink.

Modern life is complicated. Polygamy doesn't help. It only makes life more complicated and opens up untold legal and ethical unintended consequences.

We're a diverse modern industrial society. Polygamy has been the norm in many cultures but overall, it's been detrimental when it's tried here in modern day America.

Call me names and tell me I can't voice opinions when these kinds of threads appear.

Nope, don't ask for opinions if you don't want to hear them. I won't play along with misguided political correctness by shutting up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2011 02:21PM by Cheryl.

For the record, do you think sex is a good thing or a bad thing?

You're keeping records?

If a man has 20 wives he can exercise power over them. But also he can exercise power over other men in the group, too. The more wives, the more power.

Do you want to live in a society that will criminalize a type of relationship because it is different, or because it might not be for the most noble of intentions. I have always held that I would rather not get our government into the business of judging my intentions.

Legalization would put many new stipulations not fewer on polygamy. For example some countries require official liscensing for one night stands, limited sexual associations, and longer term relationships up to lifetime marriages.

Until you learn to separate the ritual abuse that is polygamy as practised by mormonsim, from polyamory, you won't get it.

And polyamory is legal -- it's polygamy that isn't.

Isn't that largely what monogamy is about as well?

Of course I would think you already know that.

Certainly, but how many people consider marrying someone they're not sexually attracted too? How many people marry with the expectation or understanding that sex will not be a part of the relationship?

A monogamous person can meet any of their needs for friendship, understanding, support, etc. from any of their friends, family or other relationships (and reciprocate) without marrying the other person/people. But the only person they would be having a sexual/romantic relationship with (by virtue of being monogamous) is the person they decide to marry.

Hence my view that monogamy is also largely about sex.

Never was and still isn't. As polygamy is most commonly practiced in the world today it's all about men having as many sexual partners as they like.

They lie to themselves and they also lie to everyone else.

I think it's more about power than anything else, though obviously the desire for sex was part of it. I just think Joseph Smith wanted to see how far people would go to follow him.

Once you get into counting wives by the dozens something else has to be afoot.

Agree with the previous remarks about power and control. The prophet in the old days, and under many FLDS groups has the ability to assign wives and reassign them--or assign them unto himself. That's not just about having lots of sex, but using women as part of an incentive system.

On a strictly biological level, life is about sex/reproduction. If it didn't feel good, we would have died out as a species before we even got stated.

Power translates into an unequal situation where the sex isn't truly "consensual." If it ever really is, of course, but hey, I'm glad I'm getting old enough I don't have to get all riled up and engage in loud debates on this stuff...

So Joseph Smith builds upon this dynamic (with essentially a built-in and inherent "conflict"; or does anyone doubt there's occasional tension even in the most loving and healthiest of relationships?), and he creates a mythology of "Wives, you must submit to your husbands."

And it becomes a best-seller in certain circles...

But because it's so at odds with cultural norms and ideas of fairness, he must accord it "divine sanction" in order to foster legitimacy...

And the trap for women is that the only way they can maintain "power" is to say "no" (perhaps at the expense of denying themselves something they do actually want). And they are, of course, the unfair recepients of the possible consequences of such encounters, i.e. pregnancy...

Life is definitely unfair...

Dr. David Reuben Reubens Cabbie signing off...
This ride was on the house, folks...

There's no equality in relationships when there's only one male and multiple females.

The same would be true if one female got to choose and lend favor to a multitude of males.

I have a question.

Did JS take in widows and older women with children already to help care for them?

Were the majority of women taken into poly marriages by BY and others older women who needed care, widows, those past menopause and unable to produce, already had 5-10 children themselves

OR

were the majority of the females young and pretty?

Just askin'

But a few older ones contributed barganining power and/or wealth.

well if they were 14 to 22 I would say young

Polygamy won't work in the modern world. It won't matter if it is legal or illegal. The discussion is purely academic. If societies around the world suddenly legalized it there would be a dramatic shortage of women and alot of men would become very hostile. Society would break down. A close examination of the modern cults that practice this form of sexual intimidation show that it ends up with young girls marrying really old creepy guys and alot of young guys being kicked out of the community.

IT DOES NOT WORK.

THE END.

As was pointed out in another thread Eskimo, Crow and Omaha tribes. We all know about Margaret Meade's work as well.

None of these cultures equate to modern industrialized American culture.

I agree about polygamy (assuming that the definition is: one husband with multiple wives, and further: that this involves a fundamentalist religion like FLDS or Islam).

In real life POLYAMORY, on the other hand, families may consist of:

1) equal numbers of adult males and adult females
2) unequal numbers of adult males and adult females
3) ALL adult males
4) ALL adult females
5) intentional polyamorous families which are composed of people who have something else which is important to them in common with each other, and where gender isn't deemed important (as, for example, seniors who band together in a mutually protective group which benefits each of them financially, physically, medically, socially, and sexually...or--at the other end of the age spectrum--university or post-grad students who do the same thing, pretty much, and for similar reasons: financial, etc.)

All of these kinds of polyamorous families exist in real life right now.

If you average all of the people in all of the polyamorous families together, the genders fairly evenly equal out, even if they're one-gender-heavy in any SINGLE polyamorous family.

I would only deem it fair if women could have as many husbands as she wanted as well, or men marrying multiple husbands, women multiple wives, etc.

Why is it always about the men? What happens when you run out of women? It only makes sense if there are tons more women than men, so you don't have men left with no one to marry.

Here is what it boils down to for me.

It's one thing if a guy gets to screw multiple women as long as he expects her to screw multiple guys.

However when a woman decides she will share a penis and agree that her man can dip into several women, then it is often for one of three reasons.
1.She has low self esteem and doesn't feel she deserves a whole man to herself. SELF ESTEEM ISSUE.
2. She will do anything to get that man's resources (money or prestige).
3. She was brainwashed and/or isolated enough to think a religion favors it (the religion was usually defined by a man).

Men in general are wired to spread the seed anywhere and everywhere- they crave variety. Women invest a lot of time into one egg so she looks for resources. Men in power will find a way to get that variety.

If my husband insisted on having other wives he'd better prepare for me to have multiple husbands.

Actually, plus more than one but I didn't want to go overboard. :)

and that sex is merely one tool these "patriarchs" use to get and maintain power.

Marriages create dynastic bonds between families. Add sex and the subsequent children born to that union and now you've got blood ties between power brokers. They're all invested in maintaining that status quo. Women and children are merely the legal tender of that culture.

You also have the aspect that by depriving other males of mates, you exercise power over them as well. Deciding who gets to marry whom is to wield extraordinary power in a society. Particularly a society as isolated as, say, the FLDS.

And, of course, within the household as well. Sex is used to control the wives. Both by the husband and the other wives. Controlling access to sex, and in the case of fundamentalist Mormons subsequently controlling conception and birth, is a huge power play.

In the same vein that rape is not about sex, but about power, polygyny as practiced by fundamentalist Mormons is also more about power than sex.

So it makes sense that the sex in polygamy is more about power than sex as well including power over the women and the males who are deprived of access to women.

What's sex about?

My answer is...

Anything and everything.

It's power and control... both major and minor. How many women- okay, yeah, men too!- turn down sex to make a point? I always thought that was cutting off your nose to spite your face, but I digress.

It's just for procreation, some (really boring people) maintain. Harrumph.

Truth is it's whatever one chooses to make it!

Me?

I say it's love, it's sweet, it's warm, it's snuggles with your favorite person, it makes you feel better after a stinkoid day, it makes you glad to be you for a while.

But that's just my opinion, and I'm nobody...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2011 12:06AM by Doxi.

I don't think it's about sex.

People who want sex can find it. And it's much easier than marrying someone.