Is Polygamy Wrong?

[New haven america]

No, but it makes my blood boil when they say that monogamy is unnatural.

Oh, monogamy's totally natural.

However, humans are not truly monogamous, if we were then threads like this wouldn't even exist as the idea of even having multiple partners within your lifetime would be unthinkable.

[Crysuko]

No, but it makes my blood boil when they say that monogamy is unnatural.

Oh, monogamy's totally natural.

However, humans are not truly monogamous, if we were then threads like this wouldn't even exist as the idea of even having multiple partners within your lifetime would be unthinkable.

Humans are naturally monogamous and this is the hill I shall die on. cheating is caused by social dynamics and relationship difficulties and polygamy is 100% artificial in humans. Do note that i'm not saying this is a bad thing.

[New haven america]

Oh, monogamy's totally natural.

However, humans are not truly monogamous, if we were then threads like this wouldn't even exist as the idea of even having multiple partners within your lifetime would be unthinkable.

Humans are naturally monogamous

Except we're not, because if we were then cheating, dating, polyamory, polygamy, etc... wouldn't exist. You'd just get married and stay that way for the rest of your life (Or if your partner dies, never remarry).

There's only like... 10 or so animals that are truly monogamous, and non of the great apes are in that groups. Hell, Bonobos are the exact opposite of monogamous.

[Kernen]

Always a pleasure to see suggestions that women are incapable of fidelity on their own.

They actually think that women are the driving force of infidelity, as they believe that women are basically asexual hypergamists who always on the look out for a more well off partner.

But this isn't the Incel thread and I'd rather it not turn into that.

*closes the door to the empty barn* Oh.

[Galloism]

Honestly, anytime someone says "unnatural" you should probably just dismiss them outright.

it would be easy to if it weren't so damned ubiquitous.

I always tell them they're posting by typing on carefully crafted keys which is reas by extremely organized sand, which sends electrical pulses at the speed of light to more extremely organized sand, which converts it to another format and retransmits it, and so on.

This process does not exist in nature, nor anything close.

[Threlizdun]

Oh, monogamy's totally natural.

However, humans are not truly monogamous, if we were then threads like this wouldn't even exist as the idea of even having multiple partners within your lifetime would be unthinkable.

Humans are naturally monogamous and this is the hill I shall die on. cheating is caused by social dynamics and relationship difficulties and polygamy is 100% artificial in humans. Do note that i'm not saying this is a bad thing.

What does it even mean to say that polygamy is artificial in humans? Also, the basic assumption that all people are naturally monogamous is quite clearly wrong. Hell, strict monogamy (one partner for life) isn't even the norm. The behavior of most people more closely matches what is called "serial monogamy", having many monogamous relationships over the course of your life. The idea that cheating is caused exclusively by social dynamics and relationship difficulties is pretty ridiculous as well. The truth of the matter is that human sexuality is complex and varied. There are often patterns and trends, but there are few if any absolute standards that are true for every individual.

[The New California Republic]

Humans are naturally monogamous and this is the hill I shall die on. cheating is caused by social dynamics and relationship difficulties and polygamy is 100% artificial in humans.

If they were naturally monogamous then there wouldn't need to be morality and ethics related to it, and laws to enforce it...

[DACOROMANIA]

If polygamy may become legal, this should be limited to three marriages and no more than.

This seems like an arbitrary figure. Are you just choosing a number at random, or are there some reasons for precisely three?

Imagine if you marry with more women and you need to satisfy them in every night. Also women are sensitive to attention and they need it. Same for a woman with more men (for a nimphoman person this may not be a problem). And the population birth rates control.
Each wife must be treated equally, in terms of finance, emotional support and sex. That's not something men who marry to satisfy their sexual desires do.

There are many reasons for a limit to almost 3 (or even 4 in special cases). I present some of them here.

If a man has more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be identified. The father as well as the mother can easily be identified. In case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father. A tremendous importance to the identification of both parents, mother and father. Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood. If a child born of such wedlock is admitted in school, and when the mother is asked the name of the father, she would have to give two or more names! I am aware that recent advances in science have made it possible for both the mother and father to be identified with the help of genetic testing.

A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.

If every man could have many wives and every woman could have many husbands, there would be vast networks of intermarried people which would be a bit crazy. Basically everyone would be married to everyone. Paternity would be questionable, and inheritance law would be maddening.

So if a woman has more husbands and they all want sex at the same time, she'll have to choose one and ignore the sexual desires of the others. Women (without a man to take care of them) were susceptible to being duped or being violated. Such a thing, if it happened in large numbers could soon destabilize the society.

Also, there are many reasons behind why not allowing an extended polygamy, especially for women, such as:
1- Such a matter is in complete contrast with the nature of women.
2- The health of the future generation will be endangered.
3- The real parents of many children will be mixed up and unknown, and many other reasons.

It would be difficult for a woman to satisfy the sexual needs of multiple husbands at the same time. For example, if a religion like Islam (just example) ordains that marital relations are a duty of the wife, this would become difficult for the wife.
Also, if a woman is already pregnant, and another husband wants to have a child, it would not be possible.
Multiple childbirths would be destructive for the health of the woman.
The woman would have to take care of the families of multiple husbands. That includes cooking, cleaning etc, and would become extremely exhausting for the woman, if not impossible.
If the woman stays with one husband at a time, others and their children would be neglected. The woman would not be able to play her role as a mother properly.

In other words, having to deal with multiple husbands would become extremely difficult for a woman. And, limiting or prohibiting a large extension of polygamy is actually quite a practical move.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives. As some people or writers are saying, in earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a couple of centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.
One can imagine what would have been the percentage of polygamous marriages among the Hindus if the Indian government had made it legal for them. Earlier, there was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the Hindu scriptures.

India has more male population than female due to female foeticide and infanticide. India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have more females as compared to males.

According to Talmudic law, Abraham had 2 wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. This practice continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah. (960 A.D to 1030 A.D) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, when an Act of the chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

China’s serious shortage of females, until a couple of years ago, is probably due to the one-child policy. Mothers, when pregnant with a girl, would abort it so that they’d have a son to carry on the family name.

The concept of polygyny was present across religions in olden times. In fact, polygyny in India during 1974 was found to be greater among Adivasis (15.25%) and Hindus (5.8%) than Muslims (5.7%). Even Jains and Buddhists had marginally higher rates.

There were a few reasons why people thought polygamy, mainly the polygyny, was acceptable:
- Increasing the probablity of having children.
- Increasing the labour supply within a kinship network.
- When the sex ratio favoured women, more women could be married.
- Expand the range of a man's alliances so he is able to maintain or acquire a position of leadership - Akbar married a Rajput princess for the same reasons.

Out of these, the main factor preventing polyandry is the first one: polygyny allows a man to have more children.
Why? A female can mother only one child (twins or triplets in rare circumstances) every ten months (for practical purposes can take as one every year). A man can father many more children in that time if he has more wives. In times where Infant Mortality Rate was high and other life expectancy parameters were small, polygyny made sense by numbers.
This does not hold in modern times, and if one accepts polygyny, he may be forced to accept polyandry as well.

[New haven america]

This seems like an arbitrary figure. Are you just choosing a number at random, or are there some reasons for precisely three?

Imagine if you marry with more women and you need to satisfy them in every night. Also women are sensitive to attention and they need it. Same for a woman with more men (for a nimphoman person this may not be a problem). And the population birth rates control.

What if you allow them to have another husband? Or what if they're both bisexual and into each other? Or what if you marry their newly found husband?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

For example, if a religion like Islam (just example) ordains that marital relations are a duty of the wife, this would become difficult for the wife.

Well, the husband does have a right over his wife in terms of marital relations, but the wife also has a right over the husband in marital relations. Neither can withhold sex from each other for no reason.

[Thuzbekistan]

For example, if a religion like Islam (just example) ordains that marital relations are a duty of the wife, this would become difficult for the wife.

Well, the husband does have a right over his wife in terms of marital relations, but the wife also has a right over the husband in marital relations. Neither can withhold sex from each other for no reason.

Which is dumb and violates basic principles of bodily autonomy

[New haven america]

Well, the husband does have a right over his wife in terms of marital relations, but the wife also has a right over the husband in marital relations. Neither can withhold sex from each other for no reason.

Which is dumb and violates basic principles of bodily autonomy

You're talking to the guy who think it's ok for a husband to beat correct his wife but not ok for the wife to do so.

I don't think he cares.

[Andsed]

For example, if a religion like Islam (just example) ordains that marital relations are a duty of the wife, this would become difficult for the wife.

Well, the husband does have a right over his wife in terms of marital relations, but the wife also has a right over the husband in marital relations. Neither can withhold sex from each other for no reason.

Wait so neither the man or woman can refuse to have sex without having to provide a reason? That is some serious bullshit as is the husband having rights over the woman and vice versa.

[Estado Castilano]

For example, if a religion like Islam (just example) ordains that marital relations are a duty of the wife, this would become difficult for the wife.

Well, the husband does have a right over his wife in terms of marital relations, but the wife also has a right over the husband in marital relations. Neither can withhold sex from each other for no reason.

That sounds an awful lot like rape.

[Galloism]

Well, the husband does have a right over his wife in terms of marital relations, but the wife also has a right over the husband in marital relations. Neither can withhold sex from each other for no reason.

That sounds an awful lot like rape.

History is pretty awful, tbh.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Well, the husband does have a right over his wife in terms of marital relations, but the wife also has a right over the husband in marital relations. Neither can withhold sex from each other for no reason.

That sounds an awful lot like rape.

Good thing rape's Haraam Consent is still needed.

[Ifreann]

That sounds an awful lot like rape.

History is pretty awful, tbh.

History, which is to say, what this poster believes should be enforced by law now.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

History is pretty awful, tbh.

History, which is to say, what this poster believes should be enforced by law now.

Which poster? Galloism doesn't believe history should be enforced by law afaik. And if you're talking about me you've got the wrong person.

[Neutraligon]

That sounds an awful lot like rape.

Good thing rape's Haraam Consent is still needed.

Neither can withhold sex from each other for no reason.

If either partner simply does not want to have sex at this moment, is that "withholding sex" for no reason?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Good thing rape's Haraam Consent is still needed.

Neither can withhold sex from each other for no reason.

If either partner simply does not want to have sex at this moment, is that "withholding sex" for no reason?

If both partners don't wanna have sex then they're gucci, there's no wrong on them.

Also I don't think that's really relevant to this thread. Let's talk in the IDT.

[Neutraligon]

If either partner simply does not want to have sex at this moment, is that "withholding sex" for no reason?

If both partners don't wanna have sex then they're gucci, there's no wrong on them.

Also I don't think that's really relevant to this thread. Let's talk in the IDT.

sure.

[Galloism]

History is pretty awful, tbh.

History, which is to say, what this poster believes should be enforced by law now.

Yeah. I was remarking this was historically the law across most of the world. Spouses were not allowed to deny sex to each other, and could be punished for doing so.

Hell, it's still considered "mental cruelty" in India, and generally abusive or cruel in much of the rest of the world.

[The New California Republic]

This seems like an arbitrary figure. Are you just choosing a number at random, or are there some reasons for precisely three?

Imagine if you marry with more women and you need to satisfy them in every night. Also women are sensitive to attention and they need it. Same for a woman with more men (for a nimphoman person this may not be a problem). And the population birth rates control.
Each wife must be treated equally, in terms of finance, emotional support and sex. That's not something men who marry to satisfy their sexual desires do.

There are many reasons for a limit to almost 3 (or even 4 in special cases). I present some of them here.

If a man has more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be identified. The father as well as the mother can easily be identified. In case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father. A tremendous importance to the identification of both parents, mother and father. Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood. If a child born of such wedlock is admitted in school, and when the mother is asked the name of the father, she would have to give two or more names! I am aware that recent advances in science have made it possible for both the mother and father to be identified with the help of genetic testing.

A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.

If every man could have many wives and every woman could have many husbands, there would be vast networks of intermarried people which would be a bit crazy. Basically everyone would be married to everyone. Paternity would be questionable, and inheritance law would be maddening.

So if a woman has more husbands and they all want sex at the same time, she'll have to choose one and ignore the sexual desires of the others. Women (without a man to take care of them) were susceptible to being duped or being violated. Such a thing, if it happened in large numbers could soon destabilize the society.

Also, there are many reasons behind why not allowing an extended polygamy, especially for women, such as:
1- Such a matter is in complete contrast with the nature of women.
2- The health of the future generation will be endangered.
3- The real parents of many children will be mixed up and unknown, and many other reasons.

It would be difficult for a woman to satisfy the sexual needs of multiple husbands at the same time. For example, if a religion like Islam (just example) ordains that marital relations are a duty of the wife, this would become difficult for the wife.
Also, if a woman is already pregnant, and another husband wants to have a child, it would not be possible.
Multiple childbirths would be destructive for the health of the woman.
The woman would have to take care of the families of multiple husbands. That includes cooking, cleaning etc, and would become extremely exhausting for the woman, if not impossible.
If the woman stays with one husband at a time, others and their children would be neglected. The woman would not be able to play her role as a mother properly.

In other words, having to deal with multiple husbands would become extremely difficult for a woman. And, limiting or prohibiting a large extension of polygamy is actually quite a practical move.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives. As some people or writers are saying, in earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a couple of centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.
One can imagine what would have been the percentage of polygamous marriages among the Hindus if the Indian government had made it legal for them. Earlier, there was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the Hindu scriptures.

India has more male population than female due to female foeticide and infanticide. India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have more females as compared to males.

According to Talmudic law, Abraham had 2 wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. This practice continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah. (960 A.D to 1030 A.D) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, when an Act of the chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

China’s serious shortage of females, until a couple of years ago, is probably due to the one-child policy. Mothers, when pregnant with a girl, would abort it so that they’d have a son to carry on the family name.

The concept of polygyny was present across religions in olden times. In fact, polygyny in India during 1974 was found to be greater among Adivasis (15.25%) and Hindus (5.8%) than Muslims (5.7%). Even Jains and Buddhists had marginally higher rates.

There were a few reasons why people thought polygamy, mainly the polygyny, was acceptable:
- Increasing the probablity of having children.
- Increasing the labour supply within a kinship network.
- When the sex ratio favoured women, more women could be married.
- Expand the range of a man's alliances so he is able to maintain or acquire a position of leadership - Akbar married a Rajput princess for the same reasons.

Out of these, the main factor preventing polyandry is the first one: polygyny allows a man to have more children.
Why? A female can mother only one child (twins or triplets in rare circumstances) every ten months (for practical purposes can take as one every year). A man can father many more children in that time if he has more wives. In times where Infant Mortality Rate was high and other life expectancy parameters were small, polygyny made sense by numbers.
This does not hold in modern times, and if one accepts polygyny, he may be forced to accept polyandry as well.

None of that says specifically why that number has been chosen; it's just noise.

[Occidentaleland]

110%. It is wrong. Change My Mind!

Okay then let me ask a question then. If everyone involved consent, are able to consent, and no one is being harmed by the relationship how is it wrong?

Because then the kids can be forced to relate with older ones and also can happen with close familiars, making a polygamy look like a sect.

[The New California Republic]

Okay then let me ask a question then. If everyone involved consent, are able to consent, and no one is being harmed by the relationship how is it wrong?

Because then the kids can be forced to relate with older ones and also can happen with close familiars, making a polygamy look like a sect.

...what?