Polygamy is the new marriage-rights frontier

[_bcspace]

In her decades of researching polygamy, Janet Bennion, a professor of anthropology and sociology at Lyndon State College, recalls three times she was “courted” by married women. One wrote her “love letters.” Another took her to a restaurant “to determine whether I was wifely material,” Bennion writes in her new book, Polygamy in Primetime.

These women were devout members of fundamentalist Mormon sects, not swingers. Like many examples in Bennion’s illuminating study, they defy the popular perception that the practice of men taking multiple wives is solely about the male libido.

Liberal Vermonters have cheered on the progress of marriage rights this election season. But what would we say to a woman who sought to unite herself in matrimony to a man and another woman?

We might crack jokes about group sex, accept such a union as “polyamory,” or view it as dangerous to women’s rights when associated with a patriarchal religion. But whatever we think of polygamy in America, Bennion argues, it’s not going away anytime soon. And she believes it should be legal.

.............................

Polygamy in Primetime responds to this new visibility with an overview of the subject that, despite occasional academic language, will appeal to general readers seeking more details than the soap operatics of “Big Love” can provide. Bennion argues provocatively that, just as marriage-equality legislation followed the advent of nuanced media portrayals of gays and lesbians, so “the decriminalization of polygamy will follow the recent poly media phenomenon.”

Of course, there are plenty of reasons for progressives to question the notion that polygamy is part of the “new American sexual revolution,” as Bennion puts it. Mormon plural marriage is tied to patriarchy and the official subordination of women who have access to the privileges of “priesthood” only through men (as in mainstream LDS). The practice rests on the assumption that all fertile women should be breeding; it relies on a high female-to-male ratio; and it has led to abuses, from the rape of teenagers to the mass expulsion of young men who threatened the ruling patriarchs’ monopoly on nubile wives.

But, as Bennion points out, monogamy has sheltered abuses, too. Polygamy, she believes, will never be “the prevalent marriage structure.” Yet it seems to work for some, including mainstream LDS women who convert to fundamentalist sects seeking a “good man” they can’t find in the regular dating pool — even if they have to share him.

We may assume we know why men opt for polygamy: Is a guy who maintains three wives in connected households really that different from a secular serial monogamist on his third or fourth family? But why would an educated, independent-minded woman choose such a situation?

.............................

SEVEN DAYS: What do women find in polygamy?
SD: What’s the relationship between fundamentalists and the LDS church?
SD: You mention having a “theory that plural marriage fosters clandestine lesbianism” — something the LDS church
doesn’t condone.
SD: Were you ever tempted by polygamy?
SD: Why should we legalize plural marriage?
SD: Given the reasons you cite for modern single women to choose polygamy — access to high-status men, emotional and economic support from co-wives — is it likely to start taking nonreligious forms?

Polygamy new marriage-rights frontier. We need to get off our high horse, and look at this from a civil liberties perspective

[_Bob Loblaw]

So, do you support legalizing polygamy? Not sure what your point is here.

[Guest]

So, do you support legalizing polygamy?

I do not.

Not sure what your point is here.

That gay marriage "rights" lead to plural marriage rights plus the erroneous notion that plural marriage is all about the male libido. Plus general interest in the topic of plural marriage since we do have official doctrine on it and there is criticism generated because of it. Her answers to the questions are interesting. It's a good article on the topic.

I have also posted it on the MDD.

[_Chap]

So, do you support legalizing polygamy? Not sure what your point is here.

I suspect bcspace is posting this in part in the hope that it may divert attention from his failure to comment on repeated requests that he should give his views on the affidavits submitted to the court by the CoJCoLDS in the Temple Lot case, in which faithful LDS women swore they had had sexual relations with Joseph Smith:

viewtopic.php?p=656984#p656984

[_bcspace]

I suspect bcspace is posting this in part in the hope that it may divert attention from his failure to comment on repeated requests that he should give his views on the affidavits submitted to the court by the CoJCoLDS in the Temple Lot case, in which faithful LDS women swore they had had sexual relations with Joseph Smith:

viewtopic.php?p=656984#p656984

Feel free to discuss that as well.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I suspect bcspace is posting this in part in the hope that it may divert attention from his failure to comment on repeated requests that he should give his views on the affidavits submitted to the court by the CoJCoLDS in the Temple Lot case, in which faithful LDS women swore they had had sexual relations with Joseph Smith:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 84#p656984

Oh, he's commented: "Where are the children?"

This is what you get from third-string wannabe mopologists like bc.

[_Chap]

I suspect bcspace is posting this in part in the hope that it may divert attention from his failure to comment on repeated requests that he should give his views on the affidavits submitted to the court by the CoJCoLDS in the Temple Lot case, in which faithful LDS women swore they had had sexual relations with Joseph Smith:

viewtopic.php?p=656984#p656984

Feel free to discuss that as well.

You are the one who expressed doubt that Smith had sex with the women he was sealed to. The Temple Lot affidavits, referenced in that thread, are good evidence you are wrong. You were asked repeatedly to say whether you thought the women who swore those affidavits were lying under oath. You gave no response, which is why I am asking you to respond now.

Well, do you think those wives of Joseph Smith were lying? And if not, doesn't that show that Joseph Smith had sex with several of his plural wives, contrary to your expressed doubts?

[_Bob Loblaw]

You are the one who expressed doubt that Smith had sex with the women he was sealed to. The Temple Lot affidavits, referenced in that thread, are good evidence you are wrong. You were asked repeatedly to say whether you thought the women who swore those affidavits were lying under oath. You gave no response, which is why I am asking you to respond now.

Well, do you think those wives of Joseph Smith were lying? And if not, doesn't that show that Joseph Smith had sex with several of his plural wives, contrary to your expressed doubts?

You don't seriously believe you'll get an answer from our cut-and-run expert, do you?

[_LDSToronto]

Not sure what your point is here.

That gay marriage "rights" lead to plural marriage rights

Bennion argues that media attention is what sways public sympathy for polygamous relationships.

plus the erroneous notion that plural marriage is all about the male libido.

Wait a second - women get horny? Are you messing with my head, BCSpace?

H.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I do not.

Why not? The church says it's perfectly moral and legitimate when authorized.

That gay marriage "rights" lead to plural marriage rights plus the erroneous notion that plural marriage is all about the male libido. Plus general interest in the topic of plural marriage since we do have official doctrine on it and there is criticism generated because of it. Her answers to the questions are interesting. It's a good article on the topic.

I have also posted it on the MDD.

I've never believed polygamy is all about the male libido. It's about a lot of things, though sexuality is definitely a factor. It's just ironic to hear people like you opposing legalization of something your own scriptures tell us is ordained of God.