Polyamory and Polygamy

Okay, I must have missed where he said that then. If he's talking about polyandry/gyny being legalized, but not other types of polygamy, then that's not fair, and he's correct.

No, I didn't mean laws specifically. I mean, Pidgey's saying polyandry/polygyny is not when people individually and consensually decide a one (wo)man, multiple (wo)men arrangement in which they agree to stay that way, as in cheating in monogamous relationships, it's when their society does not allow it, one way or another (not necessarily through laws). Get it? :C

Another issue that arises if we're talking about full polygamy, i.e. the possibility of multiple husbands and multiple wives all married to each other, is the question of "has this ever been done before and worked"?

Monogamous marriage has existed in multiple societies throughout human history and continues to exist. I'd say that's a pretty rousing proof that there is a lot of social benefit to it. But if true equal polygamy had the same sort of benefit, wouldn't that form of marriage have at least existed alongside of monogamous marriage, if not overtaken it?

That's kind of what started this line of discussion in the other thread.

I'll repost Blue Ninja's link here, as it was talking about polyandry in various indigenous cultures.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/

Vocab collision going on here, and for the sake of the ongoing health of the thread, let's lay out some definitions:

Polygyny: One man is legally allowed to have multiple wives.

Polyandry: One woman is legally allowed to have multiple husbands.

Both of these are also generally socially and culturally acceptable as well as legally possible where they occur at all.

*****

In general, if a culture or legal system allows either polygyny or polyandry, it only allows one, but not the other. In this, pidgeon is correct, it's sexist.

However, context is important as well; most cultures that allow one or the other arose from a population which had either 1) a striking sex imbalance in the population (far more women than men or vice versa), or a much higher death rate for adults of one sex or the other (common in warrior cultures, like the Mongols) or 2) a set of economic circumstances that left adult-but-unmarried members of one sex unable or less able to provide for themselves.

The point is, there was a reason that polygyny/polyandry became acceptable to the point that it was codified in law in those cultures. To say "It's wrong because it's sexist." and to ignore what those reasons were, and whether they still exist or not is shortsighted and foolish.

edited 2nd Feb '13 12:34:07 PM by Madrugada

I think it's possible to realize there are understandable reasons why a culture would develop polygyny and also say "it's wrong because it's sexist".

I don't think that understanding a culture takes away from your ability to condemn it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Precisely.

...No. You missed nothing. I forgot to explicitly say that.

I acknowledge the reasons, but reject the conclusions. I think that, even with an imbalance, we should never restrict one sex from doing what the other is allowed to. In a society with the conditions to produce polygyny or polyandry would end up with more men/women having more partners even if both are allowed to have multiple partners.

On a side note, there is no d in pigeon.