History UsefulNotes / ForTheLoveOfMany

** The advantages: In a sexist world where men work and women StayInTheKitchen, it allows women to get very high quality husbands. If you had the opportunity to marry a wealthy man and live in comfort for the rest of your life, but to do so you had to become that man's second or third wife, would you? The practical benefits to you and any children you might have ''would'', after all, outweigh the personal inconvenience to you. This is the impetus behind animal herds involving one alpha male and a bunch of females: "he who is best and most fit (as chosen by natural selection) is the one I want my kids to be fathered by, for the sake of their futures."
** In a society where men are warriors or soldiers, they get killed at a higher rate than women, leaving a gender imbalance. Doubling up on husbands then becomes the only way for there to be enough to go around. Also, the widows of the dead warriors may become single mothers; this is a hard position for her and her children--especially since she's ''still'' expected to StayInTheKitchen. If her society allows her to remarry, it's better for her kids. Finally, in a situation where large quantities of people were slain during the war, polygyny allows for rapid repopulation -- it takes a woman 9 months to have a child, during which time a man could quite possibly have sired ''hundreds'' more children; and your postbellum society may well value this efficiency.

** In a society where men are warriors or soldiers, they get killed at a higher rate then women, leaving a gender imbalance. Doubling up on husbands then becomes the only way for there to be enough to go around. Also, the widows of the dead warriors may become single mothers; this is a hard position for her and her children--especially since she's ''still'' expected to StayInTheKitchen. If her society allows her to remarry, it's better for her kids. Finally, in a situation where large quantities of people were slain during the war, polygyny allows for rapid repopulation -- it takes a woman 9 months to have a child, during which time a man could quite possibly have sired ''hundreds'' more children; and your antebellum society may well value this efficiency.

Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. One person might think the idea of having one monogamous partner for the rest of their life (or the rest of eternity, going by the previous section) would be stifling, unrealistic, and an uphill battle against human nature. Another person might find polyamory exhausting because it's hard enough to maintain ''one'' committed relationship, but they might be open to a sidepiece who makes fewer demands. People are bound to have differing boundaries based on their own level of comfort and social energy. Discussing ethical non-monogamy requires raw honesty from all parties involved.

!Widows

It's possible to have a closed poly relationship. For example, let's take the television series ''Series/BigLove'', where one man has three wives. If the marriage is closed, then that's it as far as sex and intimacy are concerned; Creator/BillPaxton isn't allowed to get any more wives (or sleep with anyone else on the side), and his three wives are likewise limited to him. If he decides to sleep with a fourth character, that's cheating. Heck, if he decides to sleep with his third wife when it's someone else's turn on the schedule, ''that's'' considered cheating too!

** The advantages: In a sexist world where men work and women StayInTheKitchen, it allows women to get very high quality husbands. If you could contrive it that your child would be fathered by Creator/BradPitt, or UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein, or Music/JohannSebastianBach, or Jeff Bezos, but to do it you had to become that man's second or third wife, would you? The practical benefits to your child ''would'', after all, outweigh the personal inconvenience to you. This is the impetus behind animal herds involving one alpha male and a bunch of females: "he who is best and most fit (as chosen by natural selection) is the one I want my kids to be fathered by, for the sake of their futures."

** The advantages: In a sexist world where men work and women StayInTheKitchen, it allows women to get very high quality husbands. If you could contrive it that your child would be fathered by Creator/BradPitt, or UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein, or Music/JohannSebastianBach, or Jeff Bezos, but to do it you had to become that man's second wife, would you? The benefits to your child ''would'', after all, outweigh the inconvenience to you. Besides, these rich, successful men can probably provide for you more healthily than their currently-single competitors. This is the impetus behind animal herds involving one alpha male and a bunch of females: "he who is best and most fit (as chosen by natural selection) is the one I want my kids to be fathered by, for the sake of their futures."

If you're looking at these ideas and thinking that they're primarily about practicality, well, you're right. The idea that a person might MarryForLove--a marriage where the partners' personal happiness is their main priority--is a [[NewerThanTheyThink relatively-new concept]] where human history is concerned. As recently as 1813, [[Literature/PrideAndPrejudice Elizabeth Bennet]] was still having to decide ''between'' marrying for love or marrying for comfort; and before the 1600s, marrying for love was basically not an option whatsoever. Instead, marriages had more to do with child-rearing, economic viability, and social/political alliances. This attitude has not entirely disappeared. Even today, "true love" only goes so far if practical considerations aren't met, like whether or not the partner can keep a job or if one wants kids but the other doesn't.

** One subset of polygyny is ''Concubinage'', whereby the husband can have only one legal wife, but multiple concubines whose legal status is lower than that of the main wife, who often takes a position of leadership over the others. One prominent culture which practiced concubinage until it was outlawed in modern times was the Chinese. In North America, even though the mainline Mormon church banned polygyny in 1890, splinter sects practice it to this day. "Concubinage" might not the be word they would use, but it functionally works out the same way; a wealthy man might have one legal wife and one or more "spirit wives," where they're married in the eyes of their religious community but hold no legal status in their state of residence.

You'll notice that none of these relationships give you the right to just go out and do whatever (or whomever) you want, without the consent of your partners. Generally, that's reserved for being single. All these relationships involve being committed to somebody--sometimes more than one somebody--and if you get together with someone when your partner(s) has told you not to, then you are cheating and that's that. This is where multi-partner relationships get tricky. Say you're in a relationship with Sam and Alex, and you then want to sleep with Charlie on the side. Alex is amenable, but Sam says no and won't budge (maybe Charlie was mean to them in high school). It's hard enough to get permission to do anything from ''one'' spouse; imagine having to clear your actions with two!

You'll notice that none of these relationships give you the right to just go out and do whatever (or whomever) you want, without the consent of your partners. Generally, that's reserved for being single. All these relationships involve being committed to somebody--sometimes more than one somebody--and if you get together with someone when your partner(s) has told you not to, then you are cheating and that's that. This is where multi-partner relationships get tricky. Say you're in a relationship with Alexis and Bryce, and you then want to sleep with Charlie on the side. Alexis is amenable... But Bryce says no, and won't budge. (Maybe Charlie was mean to them in high school.) It's hard enough to get permission to do anything from ''one'' spouse; imagine having to clear your actions with two!

** One subset of polygyny is ''Concubinage'', whereby the husband can have only one legal wife, but multiple concubines whose legal status is lower than that of the main wife, who often takes a position of leadership over the others. One prominent culture which practiced concubinage until it was outlawed in modern times was the Chinese. In North America, even though the mainline Mormon church banned polygyny in 1890, splinter sects practice it to this day. "Concubinage" might not the be word they would use, but it functionally works out the same way; a wealthy man might have one legal wife and one or more "spirit wives," where they're married in the eyes of their religious community but hold no legal status.

** One subset of polygyny is ''Concubinage'', whereby the husband can have only one legal wife, but multiple concubines whose legal status is lower than that of the main wife. One prominent culture which practiced concubinage until it was outlawed in modern times was the Chinese. In North America, splinter Mormon sects that practice polygyny (the main church banned it in 1890) also fall under this category, where a wealthy man might have one legal wife and one or more "spirit wives," where they're married in the eyes of their religious community but hold no legal status.

If you're looking at these ideas and thinking that they're primarily about practicality, well, you're right. The idea that a person might MarryForLove--a marriage where the partners' personal happiness is their main priority--is a [[NewerThanTheyThink relatively-new concept]] where human history is concerned. As recently as 1813, [[Literature/PrideAndPrejudice Elizabeth Bennet]] was still having to decide ''between'' marrying for love or marrying for comfort; and before the 1600s, marrying for love was basically not an option whatsoever. Instead, marriages had more to do with child-rearing, economic viability, and social/political alliances. This attitude has not entirely disappeared. Even today, love only goes so far if practical considerations aren't met, like whether or not they can keep a job or if one wants kids but the other doesn't.

You'll notice that none of these relationships give you the right to just go out and do whatever (or whomever) you want, without the permission or consent of your partners. Generally, that's reserved for being single. All these relationships involve being committed to somebody--sometimes more than one somebody--and if you get together with someone when your partner(s) has told you not to, then you are cheating and that's that. This is where multi-partner relationships get tricky. Say you're in a relationship with Alexis and Bryce, and you then want to sleep with Charlie on the side. Alexis is amenable... But Bryce says no, and won't budge. (Maybe Charlie was mean to them in high school.) It's hard enough to get permission to do anything from ''one'' spouse; imagine having to clear your actions with two!

** One subset of polygyny is ''Concubinage'', whereby the husband can have only one legal wife, but multiple concubines whose legal status is lower than that of the main wife. One prominent culture which practiced concubinage until it was outlawed in modern times was the Chinese. In North America, splinter Mormon sects that practice polygyny (the main church banned it in the 1800's) also fall under this category, where a wealthy man might have one legal wife and one or more "spirit wives," where they're married in the eyes of their religious community but hold no legal status.

** One subset of polygyny is ''Concubinage'', whereby the husband can have only one legal wife, but multiple concubines whose legal status is lower than that of the main wife. One prominent culture which practiced concubinage until it was outlawed in modern times was the Chinese.

If you're looking at these ideas and thinking that they're primarily about practicality, well, you're right. The idea that a person might MarryForLove--a marriage in which your personal happiness takes primacy over questions of procreation, economics, etc, or at least is an equal consideration--is much NewerThanTheyThink. As recently as 1813, [[Literature/PrideAndPrejudice Elizabeth Bennet]] was still having to decide ''between'' marrying for love or marrying for comfort; and before the 1600s, marrying for love was basically not an option whatsoever. Instead, marriages had more to do with child-rearing and political alliances than anything else. This attitude has not entirely disappeared. Even today, love only goes so far if practical considerations aren't met, like whether or not they can keep a job.

Incidentally, polygyny was legal in several ancient cultures, including the ancient Israelites of Literature/TheBible; Solomon was said to have 700 wives. It's still legally recognised in much of the world, especially in countries where UsefulNotes/{{Islam}} is the predominant faith. (UsefulNotes/{{Eritrea}}, UsefulNotes/{{India}}, UsefulNotes/SriLanka, and the UsefulNotes/{{Philippines}} recognise polygynous marriages among their sizeable Muslim communities, but not among other people.) Polyandry... not so much, and has mostly been practiced in the Himalayas.

Defined broadly, polyamory doesn't have to include romance or sex; it could mean that you want to form significant emotional bonds--of any manner--with more than one person (with the consent of all involved). In that sense you could argue that we are ''all'' polyamorists: even people who get married to only one spouse will still have emotional bonds with friends, siblings, parents, children. Not the same ''kinds'' of bonds they have with their spouse, [[ParentalIncest or so we hope]], but bonds nonetheless. Generally, though, the world "polyamory" refers to ''romantic'' bonds, which are held has being distinct from family and friendship bonds.

If you're looking at these ideas and thinking that they're primarily about practicality, well, you're right. The idea that a person might MarryForLove--a marriage in which your personal happiness takes primacy over questions of procreation, economics, etc, or at least is an equal consideration--is much NewerThanTheyThink. As recently as 1813, [[Literature/PrideAndPrejudice Elizabeth Bennet]] was still having to decide ''between'' marrying for love or marrying for comfort; and before the 1600s, marrying for love was basically not an option whatsoever. Instead, marriages had more to do with child-rearing and political alliances than anything else. This attitude has not entirely disappeared. Even today, would you seriously marry someone who you thought would make a bad parent? Or, for that matter, who couldn't provide for you in a crisis?

Yes, we need to talk about '''death''' a little bit here, because there are cultural traditions in which widows and widowers are considered to be still married to their dead spouses. In most modern traditions, marriages are regarded as only valid "until death do us part," so that only ''living'' people can be considered married to each other. But in some religions, marriages still exist in an afterlife of some sort, whether or not they actually practice polygamy between living people.[[note]]For example, though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the largest denomination of UsefulNotes/{{Mormonism}}) has long since prohibited polygamy among the living, they recognize ''posthumous'' polygamy between the dead and between the living and dead, meaning that a living person remains married to a deceased spouse and is free to remarry a new living spouse, who will ''also'' remain married to them when deceased. Then when the widow or widower themselves dies, everyone they permanently married is considered to still be married to them in the afterlife.[[/note]] This is especially true if divorce isn't an option--Catholicism, the biggest branch of UsefulNotes/{{Christianity}}, subscribes to the idea that if two people get married, they are spiritually linked ''forever'', even if they one day decide they no longer want to be. Catholicism also exemplifies the uncertainty about widowed spouses re-marrying, with one influential writer, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian]], arguing both for ''and'' against it at different times. Needless to say, marriage customs can be very complicated in this regard.

Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. One person might think the idea of having one monogamous partner for the rest of their life (or the rest of eternity, going by the previous section) would be stifling, unrealistic, and an uphill battle against human nature. Another person might find polyamory exhausting because it's hard enough to maintain ''one'' committed relationship, but they might still be open to a sidepiece who makes fewer demands of their time. People are bound to have differing boundaries based on their own level of comfort and social energy. Discussing ethical non-monogamy requires raw honesty from all parties involved.

Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. One person might think the idea of having one monogamous partner for the rest of their life (or the rest of eternity, going by the previous section) would be stifling, unrealistic, and an uphill battle against human nature. Another person might find polyamory way too complicated and exhausting because it's hard enough to maintain ''one'' committed relationship, but they might still be open to a sidepiece who makes fewer demands of their time. People are bound to have differing boundaries based on their own level of comfort and social energy. Discussing ethical non-monogamy requires raw honesty from all parties involved.

Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. One person might think the idea of having one monogamous partner for the rest of their life (or the rest of eternity, going by the previous section) would be stifling, unrealistic, and an uphill battle against human nature. Another person might find polyamory way too complicated and exhausting because it's hard enough to maintain ''one'' committed relationship. However, they might still be open to a sidepiece who makes fewer demands of their time. People are bound to have differing boundaries based on their own level of comfort and social energy. Discussing ethical non-monogamy requires raw honesty from all parties involved.

Finally, there is room for a fair amount of personal discomfort in these things. One person might think the idea of having one monogamous partner for the rest of their life (or the rest of eternity, going by the previous section) would be stifling, unrealistic, and an uphill battle against human nature. Another person might find polyamory complicated and exhausting because it's hard enough to maintain ''one'' committed relationship, but they might still be open to a sidepiece who makes fewer demands of their time. People are bound to have differing boundaries based on their own level of comfort and social energy. Discussing ethical non-monogamy requires raw honesty from all parties involved.