Is polyandry bad?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Polyandry here means women having multiple sexual partners simultaneously. Likewise,polyandrous marriage refers to a woman being married to multiple (two or more) men simultaneously.
My opinion

Because of my religion I believe polyandry is wrong. I do not think it should be illegal, however except in cases of public indecency or indeed when people are publicly open about being in such a relationship such as through polyandrous marriage

See also
Is polygyny bad?: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=496288
Existence of God/gods: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=496295
Is chivalry good: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=497082

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

How do I make a poll?

[Kernen]

Nah. With the divorce of childbearing from sexual relationships, it's entirely possible to best satisfy all your different needs at different times of your life with different people rather than trying to force one person into all, those roles.

People change. Their needs change. Partners don't always change with them.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Nah. With the divorce of childbearing from sexual relationships, it's entirely possible to best satisfy all your different needs at different times of your life with different people rather than trying to force one person into all, those roles.

People change. Their needs change. Partners don't always change with them.

Then they can break up with their partner(s) except for their favourite.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Nah. With the divorce of childbearing from sexual relationships, it's entirely possible to best satisfy all your different needs at different times of your life with different people rather than trying to force one person into all, those roles.

People change. Their needs change. Partners don't always change with them.

Good point about the "divorce of childbearing from sexual relationships" though.

[Kernen]

Nah. With the divorce of childbearing from sexual relationships, it's entirely possible to best satisfy all your different needs at different times of your life with different people rather than trying to force one person into all, those roles.

People change. Their needs change. Partners don't always change with them.

Then they can break up with their partners

Why? Assuming everybody is OK with it, because choice matters, if my partner meets, say, my companionship needs and not my sexual needs, and vice versa, what's harmful about having partners that meet our sexual needs at the same time? This, fortunately, transcends the question of gender.

[The Northern Chinese Republic]

In some cultures, there's a tradition of brothers marrying the same woman to simplify inheritance. It actually does solve some problems if you have a pre-capitalist economy where land is the primary form of wealth.

It's obviously not for everyone, though.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Then they can break up with their partners

Why? Assuming everybody is OK with it, because choice matters, if my partner meets, say, my companionship needs and not my sexual needs, and vice versa, what's harmful about having partners that meet our sexual needs at the same time? This, fortunately, transcends the question of gender.

Because sexual jealousy is a natural emotion which can cause rivalry amongst males, dividing the state. I feel like this is the reason why most polyandrous societies either suffer from civil war (some tribes in tribal Nepal practice polyandry), inter-tribal rivalry (the Comanche) or are occupied by the enemy (Tibet). Sparta is the exception but literally everything in Sparta was about war.

[Esternial]

How do I make a poll?

Edit your original post and look at the bottom for Options (you'll see stuff like "Disable smilies" etc.). You should see a "Poll Creation" tab there.

[Atheris]

I don't see why people care what does or doesn't go on in other people's bedrooms.

[Sundiata]

Yes, it's bad and certainly worth the condemnation. Society is like cooking a stew, if a crucial step is bungled it mucks the whole thing up. Trying to separate love from monogamy as it should exist between a husband and wife only leads to confusion.

[Kernen]

Why? Assuming everybody is OK with it, because choice matters, if my partner meets, say, my companionship needs and not my sexual needs, and vice versa, what's harmful about having partners that meet our sexual needs at the same time? This, fortunately, transcends the question of gender.

Because sexual jealousy is a natural emotion which can cause rivalry amongst males, dividing the state. I feel like this is the reason why most polyandrous societies either suffer from civil war (some tribes in tribal Nepal practice polyandry), inter-tribal rivalry (the Comanche) or are occupied by the enemy (Tibet). Sparta is the exception but literally everything in Sparta was about war.

Jealousy, like any emotion, can be managed. Humans are generally not given to throwing state destabilizing tantrums when they don't get a job they apply for, or get rear ended. We don't kill people who rebuff our romantic advances.

The unifying failure here is one of self control, not of polygamy.

[Kernen]

I don't see why people care what does or doesn't go on in other people's bedrooms.

A misguided belief that they know what is best for you regardless of actual knowledge. Your choice means little to them, and yet they get very upset if you return the favor.

[Bienenhalde]

I wouldn't advocate polygamy in general, but I think polygynists are hypocritical and sexist for supporting polygyny but condemning polyandry. I don't see how they aren't equally bad.

[Atheris]

I don't see why people care what does or doesn't go on in other people's bedrooms.

A misguided belief that they know what is best for you regardless of actual knowledge.

...Oh, yeah. That.

[Ottomeme]

According to the laws of God, yes it is illegal.

[Kernen]

According to the laws of God, yes it is illegal.

Not a convincing pitch.

[Suriyanakhon]

I don't consider polyandry to be inherently good or bad, it depends on the social context of how it sprung up and if there are good reasons that it had done so, such as places like Tibet.

Yes, it's bad and certainly worth the condemnation. Society is like cooking a stew, if a crucial step is bungled it mucks the whole thing up. Trying to separate love from monogamy as it should exist between a husband and wife only leads to confusion.

If running a society was like cooking then it would be a whole lot easier to follow a premade recipe.

[Sundiata]

According to the laws of God, yes it is illegal.

While you're not wrong about that, the state should also follow suit with respect to that moral trend.

[The Northern Chinese Republic]

Why? Assuming everybody is OK with it, because choice matters, if my partner meets, say, my companionship needs and not my sexual needs, and vice versa, what's harmful about having partners that meet our sexual needs at the same time? This, fortunately, transcends the question of gender.

Because sexual jealousy is a natural emotion which can cause rivalry amongst males, dividing the state. I feel like this is the reason why most polyandrous societies either suffer from civil war (some tribes in tribal Nepal practice polyandry), inter-tribal rivalry (the Comanche) or are occupied by the enemy (Tibet). Sparta is the exception but literally everything in Sparta was about war.

Sparta's like the Nazi Germany of Ancient Greece. Made everyone miserable, got lots of stuff written about them because they were so nasty, didn't actually do that well in conflicts with less rigid societies.

[Sundiata]

If running a society was like cooking then it would be a whole lot easier to follow a premade recipe.

Yes, and in many respects, I would prefer that we did.

[Nova Bromelia]

What happens between two, or three, or five, or seventyeight, consenting adults should be entirely their own case, who am I to call that "bad"? Same thing with polygamy (although in that case I would advocate for triplechecking the "consenting" part. Or, you know what, let's do that for polyandry as well, to get one nice and clear rule in place)

[Old Tyrannia]

Anything other than monogamy is immoral and anti-social.

States should not extend legal recognition to polygamous relationships, regardless of gender ratio, and society should reject such arrangements as acceptable ways of living.

[Atheris]

According to the laws of God, yes it is illegal.

The Lambeth Conference was the law of man justified by the way the law of God was interpreted. Isn't polygamy defended in the Old Testament?

[Sundiata]

What happens between two, or three, or five, or seventyeight, consenting adults should be entirely their own case, who am I to call that "bad"?

Well, most likely a Catholic.

Same thing with polygamy (although in that case I would advocate for triplechecking the "consenting" part. Or, you know what, let's do that for polyandry as well, to get one nice and clear rule in place)

Consent is not the sole determinant of whether or not an act is immoral.